Recent Changes in Government Policy Towards Broadleaved WoodlandAuthor(s): Charles WatkinsSource: Area, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Jun., 1986), pp. 117-122Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20002313 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 03:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:55:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Area (1986) 18.2, 117-122

Recent changes in government policy towards broadleaved woodland

Charles Watkins, Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ

Summary The government recently announced several new policy initiatives designed to maintain and enhance the value of Britain's broadleaved woodlandfor timber production, landscape, recreation and nature conservation. These initiatives are outlined within the context of the general debate over the needfor changes in national woodland policies.

'I came to Martinhoe, and then to a headland full of trees... These woods were wrecked and looked wonderful. It was called Woody Bay and was littered with fallen trees. They had all blown down in the winter's hurricane-force winds, and blocked most of the paths, making this part of the coast tangled and wild with great splintered tree trunks. It was a marvellous ruin still-alive trees fractured all over the floor of the woods. ' (Paul Theroux 1984).

Over the past five years there has been considerable discussion about the best ways to encourage the management of broadleaved woodlands in Britain. On 24 July 1985, the government announced a new broadleaved woodland policy and it is useful to take stock of the main aspects of the current debate, and the policy changes that have ensued.

The woodland debate

Few subjects have aroused such controversy in British rural land management as the changes affecting woodland. Four main types of change may be identified: 1 afforestation, especially with conifers, of otherwise unwooded areas particularly in

upland Britain; 2 clearance of woodland, especially broadleaved in character, and conversion to other land uses such as agriculture, quarrying or housing; 3 conversion of broadleaved woodland to coniferous or mixed woodland by replanting; 4 gradual degradation of woodland by lack of management.

The controversy over the first type of change, afforestation, is of long standing (Birch 1936; Sheail 1981), but until recently the other three types aroused relatively little comment and it is upon these that I wish to concentrate in this paper. As late as 1976 it was possible, for example, to write that' Since conflicts have chiefly arisen over afforestation, the greater emphasis in the foreseeable future on replanting suggests that they are likely to be less important than in the past.' (Coppock 1977, 81) A number of factors soon led, however, to a significant movement towards controversy over types of change other than afforestation.

First, there was the important general shift of emphasis in public concern about the countryside away from interest in the loss of farmland to other uses, and towards concern about the deleterious effects of modern agricultural and forestry methods upon rural landscape and wildlife. The publication of New agricultural landscapes (Westmacott and Worthington 1974) helped to concentrate attention upon the changes in the agricultural landscape brought about by farmers themselves. From the

117

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:55:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

118 Government policy towards broadleaved woodland

early 1970s onwards there has been increasing concern with the loss of important wildlife habitats, culminating in the furore surrounding the publication of The theft of the countryside (Shoard 1980) and the controversy engendered by the passing of the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Cox and Lowe 1983). The debate continues. The second factor was a growing interest in trees and woodlands as elements in the

landscape. The extraordinary loss of most elms following the spread throughout the country of Dutch elm disease from 1968 onwards Uones 1981) emphasised the vulnerability of what had symbolised permanence and longevity (Thomas 1984).

Although it was realised that significant changes were taking place few figures were available. However, most County Councils and National Parks carried out woodland surveys, of variable quality, at the time structure plans were being formulated (eg

Gwent CC 1976; Towler 1978). The Gwent report showed that many woods were in a state of decline, and the Countryside Commission commissioned a pilot survey of small woods in part of the Usk Valley to assess the situation (DART 1978). A wider study of nine sample areas followed (Countryside Commission 1983). The main conclusion was that the small woods of England and Wales were a considerable asset which was poorly managed and that steps should be taken to reverse the resultant deterioration. The results of this study encouraged the instigation of a number of small woodlands projects, funded by diverse sources, to help restore small woods (Brandon 1985).

The third main factor leading to increased concern about woodland change was the work of historical ecologists which showed the importance of certain types of woodland as historical landscape features and as sites of great value for wildlife conservation. Tansley (1939, 243-4) noted that '... it is unfortunate that we can rarely distinguish between those [semi-natural woodlands] that have been planted, and those that are the direct descendants of natural woodlands that have been continuously exploited for many centuries. ' In recent years Rackham and Peterken have shown that by using historical records, maps, and archaeological fieldwork in conjunction

with assessments of the present woodland species, this distinction is often possible (Rackham 1976, 1980; Peterken 1981). In particular, these authors have emphasised the importance of 'ancient woodlands' which can be shown to have been in existence since at least 1600. Once the inherent value of ancient woodlands had been demonstrated, concern about their condition and loss increased rapidly.

The interaction of these three factors led to great pressure from a variety of conser vation groups for changes in public policy towards the management of broadleaved woodland (Grove 1983). The use of land for forestry is not regarded as ' develop ment ' under the planning legislation although growing concern about the effects of afforestation have resulted in calls for it to be brought under planning control (Ramblers' Association 1980; Brotherton 1983). A complicated mixture of public controls over woodland management, including woodland planting grants, tax concessions for woodland owners, felling licences and tree preservation orders does exist, but these have been subject to adverse criticism from both foresters (grants and tax concessions not attractive enough; controls too restrictive) and conservationists (grants and tax concessions encourage the planting of conifers; controls full of loopholes) (Watkins 1983a).

Recent policy changes The widespread interest in the condition of broadleaved woodland was indicated by the amount of evidence on the subject received by the subcommittee of the House of

Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology set up to investigate the scientific

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:55:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Government policy towards broadleaved woodland 119

aspects of forestry (Sherfield 1980). The Committee's first report noted that the future management of broadleaved woodland posed special problems and that some woods of particular historical or conservation importance should be managed as nature reserves.

Moreover, the Committee considered that further loss of other broadleaved woodland through clearance or conversion to coniferous woodland should not be countenanced and that it should be productively and profitably managed in a way that is compatible with conservation and amenity. The Committee went on to recommend that a long term policy for the future of British woodland should be established.

In July 1982 a conference on 'Broadleaves in Britain' was held at Loughborough (Malcolm et al. 1982). Following this conference, in October, the Forestry Commission set up the 'Broadleaved policy review group' to formulate a long term policy for broadleaved woodland. The working group invited over fifty forestry, conservation and other bodies to submit written evidence. It also acted to some extent as an editorial steering committee for a new Forestry Commission Bulletin, Silviculture ofbroadleaved

woodland which is the first general and comprehensive Bulletin on broadleaved woodland to have been produced by the Forestry Commission (Evans 1984).

The report of the review group was published in May 1984 (Forestry Commission 1984a), and the Forestry Commission invited comments by the end of August. The report noted that the results of the 1979-82 Forestry Commission census indicated that there had been an increase in the area of broadleaved woodland since 1949 (Forestry Commission 1984b). At the same time, the report recognised that the area of ancient woodland was thought to have diminished appreciably. A number of policy recommendations were made: to maintain the current area of broadleaved woodland; to manage ancient woodlands to perpetuate their unique features; to manage other broadleaved woodlands productively and profitably while maintaining their value for amenity and wildlife and finally to improve the productivity of broadleaved woodlands (Forestry Commission 1984).

With the publication of this report, the Forestry Commission recognised the importance of ancient woodlands, and also put forward a number of initiatives to

meet the four main objectives. These initiatives included the tightening up of conditions associated with felling licences; the recognition of the importance of the Nature Conservancy Council's (NCC) register of ancient woodlands (eg NCC 1984) and the need for guidelines for the management of ancient woodland; the need for better information for owners of small woods; the implementation of a new broadleaved grant scheme and the slight modification of income tax concessions for woodland owners; and lastly the need for local squirrel control groups and further research.

The Broadleaves in Britain consultative paper aroused a lot of interest: the Council for the Protection of Rural England, for example, responding with a sixty point

memorandum on forestry policy (CPRE 1984). In April 1985, the Forestry Commission issued a further discussion paper with the same title setting out various policy objectives developed in the light of comments received on the earlier consultative paper (Forestry Commission 1985). Following a review of the reasons for the importance of broadleaved woodland and the problems involved in their management, the Commission put forward six policy aims, two of which had not been included in the earlier document, namely: the promotion of new broadleaved woods where they are at present scarce, including areas in the rural-urban fringe, and the encouragement of greater use of broadleaves in the uplands.

To achieve the six policy aims, the various initiatives put forward in the earlier consultative paper were reiterated with the addition of some extra ideas. These included, first, the designation in each Commission Conservancy of a 'private

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:55:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

120 Government policy towards broadleaved woodland

forestry and environment officer' to co-ordinate advice, stimulate new planting, and encourage co-operative marketing ventures, and second, the provision of training in

broadleaved woodland management for staff of the Forestry Commission and other interested agencies.

The government announcement of 24 July 1985 showed that most of the proposals put forward in the two Broadleaves in Britain documents had been realised and the six policy aims were endorsed. The statement noted that ' We... consider it important to the success of these new policy aims that they are pursued with a reasonable degree of flexibility and within the framework of an essentially voluntary approach which harnesses the interest and goodwill of landowners, farmers and foresters' (Hansard 1985b, 3). It also stated that the Forestry Commission would be taking into account the growing public interest in broadleaved woodlands in its current assessment of

methods of making its Regional Advisory Committees more open when dealing with disputed applications for grant aid and felling licences (Hansard 1985a). Most of the initiatives put forward in the Broadleaves in Britain documents were also accepted. A new grant scheme with significantly higher rates of grant of up to ?1200 per ha was introduced in October 1985. Although changes in income tax concessions were not approved, the proposition that ancient woodlands may be exempt from capital taxa tion is under consideration (Peterken 1983a). Furthermore, it was announced that the volume of timber which may be felled in any quarter without a licence will be reduced from 30 cu m to 5 cu m per quarter. This has reduced the importance of a long recognised loophole. Finally, the proposal that ' silvicultural thinnings ' be excluded from felling licensing, which had been put forward by the cost-cutting Rayner report, was finally dropped (Rayner 1980; Watkins 1983b).

Conclusions In broad terms the policy changes outlined in this paper may be welcomed as a sig nificant move towards the better protection of broadleaved woodland. The recognition of the importance of ancient woodland by both the Forestry Commission and private forestry organisations (Harris 1985) indicates a very important shift in ' received ideas' about woodland management. It must be emphasised, however, that the new policies are changes of degree rather than of kind. The closer control of felling and higher grants reinforce well established methods; they are not revolutionary, and it is possible that a number of loopholes remain. To what extent, for example, will the Forestry Commission insist on the replanting of broadleaved trees in small woods of less than 0 25 ha which are not eligible for their grant aid? How well protected will be those ancient woods of less than 2-0 ha which are not included in the NCC's inventory? In general, it is likely that these methods will both curtail loss of broadleaved woodland and encourage its management, but they can only be successful if the Forestry Commission, which has recently suffered substantial staff cuts, is given sufficient funding to monitor and administer the toughened felling controls and provide the

grant aid. It is more difficult to foresee whether the establishment of ' private forestry and environment officers ' will result in successful co-operative marketing arrange

ments (Downing 1985), while the extent to which the Regional Advisory Committees will be made more open to conservation and amenity interests remains in the balance.

In this paper I have described how the condition and management of broadleaved woodland have been the subject of considerable controversy and that important policy changes have been made partly in response to this. It is disappointing that relatively few geographers have been involved in the research and discussion associated with the debate (Watkins and Wheeler 1981; Woods 1985). There are however still many areas

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:55:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Government policy towards broadleaved woodland 121

which deserve further study. To give some examples, there is room for further research on the use of remote sensing and other sources for the analysis of woodland

change (Peterken 1983b; Essex 1984; Watkins 1985; Bradbury et al. 1985); there is a need for case studies of changes in management policy on woodland estates in the present century taking advantage of estate papers and maps (the various documents associated with the ' dedication ' grant schemes remain a much underused source); and finally the effectiveness of tree preservation orders and felling licences on a national basis still remains to be determined. As these types of control can be seen as possible well established models which could be modified to control other threatened landscape features this is a matter of some general importance.

References Birch T W (1936) 'The afforestation of Britain' Economic Geography 12, 1-26

Bradbury P A, Haines-Young R H, Mather P M and Smart C W (1985) 'Woodlands in the Welsh

landscape: an analysis based on remotely-sensed satellite data and digital terrain information' paper

presented at the conference on Information for Forward Planning, Grange-over-Sands, Cumbria Brandon 0 (1985) 'The broadleaved woodland on the Culm Measures' paper presented at the 28th

meeting of the Devon Conservation Forum, University of Exeter

Brotherton D I (1983) ' Determinants of landscape change: the case of afforestation in the National Parks of

England and Wales ' Landscape Planning 9, 193-207

Coppock J T (1977) 'The challenge of change: problems of rural land use in Great Britain' Geography 62,

75-86 CPRE (1984) ' CPRE's response to the Forestry Commission's consultative paper Broadleaves in Britain'

unpublished Countryside Commission (1983) Small woods on farms (Countryside Commission, Cheltenham) Cox G and Lowe P (1983) 'A battle not the war: the politics of the Wildlife and Countryside Act'

Countryside Planning Yearbook 4, 48-76 Dartington Amenity Research Trust (DART) (1978) Small Woodlands on farms unpublished report Downing P (1985) 'Project Silvanus' paper presented at the 28th meeting of the Devon Conservation

Forum, University of Exeter Essex S J (1984) 'The use of the annual agricultural returns to measure change in the area of woodland'

East Midland Geographer 8, 159-62

Evans J (1984) Silviculture of broadleaves (HMSO, London) Forestry Commission (1984a) Broadleaves in Britain (Forestry Commission, Edinburgh) Forestry Commission (1984b) Census of woodlands and trees 1979-82: Great Britain (Forestry Commission,

Edinburgh) Forestry Commission (1985) Broadleaves in Britain unpublished report Grove R (1983) Thefutureforforestry (British Association of Nature Conservationists, Cambridge) Gwent County Council (1976) Woodland survey: summary report (Gwent County Council, Cwmbran) Hansard (1985a) Number 1334, 31 January 1985, Written answers 145 (HMSO, London)

Hansard (1985b) Number 1357, 24 July 1985, Written answers 2-4 (HMSO, London)

Harris E H M (1985) ' Broadleaved woodland for the future ' Quarterly Journal of Forestry 79, 257-8

Jones P (1981)' The geography of Dutch elm disease in Britain' Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 6, 324-36

Malcolm D C, Evans J and Edwards P N (eds) (1982) Broadleaves in Britain (Institute of Chartered

Foresters, Edinburgh) Nature Conservancy Council (1984) Nottinghamshire inventory of ancient woodland (NCC, Huntingdon) Peterken G F (1981) Woodland conservation and management (Chapman and Hall, London)

Peterken G F (1983a) 'Woodland conservation in Britain' in Warren A and Goldsmith F B (eds)

Conservation in perspective (Wiley, Chichester), 83-100 Peterken G F (1983b) ' Woodland surveys can mislead ' New Scientist 100, 802-3

Rackham 0 (1976) Trees and woodlands in the British landscape (Dent, London)

Rackham 0 (1980) Ancient woodland (Arnold, London)

Ramblers' Association (1980) Afforestation: the case against expansion (Ramblers' Association, London) Rayner Report (1980) Consultative paper on the administration offelling control and grant aid (Forestry

Commission, Edinburgh) Sheail J (1981) Rural conservation in inter-war Britain (Oxford University Press, Oxford) Sherfield Report (1980) Scientific aspects offorestry Second report of the House of Lords Select Committee

on Science and Technology (HMSO, London)

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:55:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

122 Government policy towards broadleaved woodland

Shoard M (1980) The theft of the countryside (Temple Smith, London) Tansley A (1939) The British Islands and their vegetation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) Theroux P (1984) The kingdom by the sea (Penguin, Harmondsworth) Thomas K (1984) Man and the natural world (Penguin, Harmondsworth) Towler R W (1978) A survey of the amenity woodlands of the Snowdonia National Park (Snowdonia National

Park Office, Penrhyndeudraeth) Watkins C (1983a) 'The public control of woodland management' Town Planning Review 54, 437-59

Watkins C (1983b) 'New felling control procedures ' Quarterly Journal of Forestry 77, 48-9 Watkins C (1985) 'Sources for the assessment of British woodland change in the twentieth century'

Applied Geography 5, 151-66 Watkins C and Wheeler P T (eds) (1981) The study and use of British woodlands (Department of Geography,

University of Nottingham) Westmacott R and Worthington T (1974) New agricultural landscapes (Countryside Commission,

Cheltenham) Woods A (ed) (1985) Broadleaved woodlands in Wales: the core report (Cynefin, Newtown)

Reading Geographical Papers 84 Housebuilders in an area of growth: negotiating the built environment of Central Berkshire,

by S C Fleming. ?2.50 85 Planning councillors in an area of growth: little power but all the blame?, by S J G Witt and

S C Fleming. ?2.50 86 The Laurentide ice sheet: evidence from the Canadian Arctic on its geometry, dynamics

and history, by John T Andrews. ?2.00 87 The M4 corridor: patterns and causes of growth in high technology industries, by M J

Breheny and R W McQuaid. ?2.00 88 Water authorities and leisure provision in England and Wales, by Mark W Radburn. ?2.00 89 Innovation in information technology industries in Great Britain, by Peter Hall, Paschal

Preston and Nick Bevan. ?2.50 90 The geography of aid, by Akin L Mabogunje. ?2.00

Copies may be obtained from Geographical Papers, Department of Geography, University of Reading, Reading RG6 2AB. Prices include postage and packing within the British Isles; cheques should be made payable to ' Reading Geographical Papers'.

LAND

LAND is a 12-page periodical published three times per year (April, August and December) by the Lands Directorate of Environment Canada, providing information on Canada's land resources. It contains a mixture of news items on government policies, legislation, university research, statistics, future projects, conferences, workshops, and publications.

LAND is interested in receiving submissions from readers for inclusions in future issues of the newsletter. Articles, news items, and correspondence on all aspects of the land resource, both Canadian and international, are welcomed by the editor.

The newsletter is available free of charge in both official languages. If you would like to be placed on the mailing list, write to LAND, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada KIA OE7.

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.250 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:55:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions