This paper should not be distributed beyond AFG and Regional Advisory Committees.

Agenda Item:3

/ Applicants Focus Group
17 November 2010 /
Paper: 07/10

EVOLVING POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR FORESTRY IN ENGLAND

Purpose

  1. To share with you our analysis of the implications for forestry and the role of the Forestry Commission (FC) of the evolving policy framework for trees, woods and forests in England and ask for input to refining our analysis.

Background

  1. The new policy framework for forestry in Englandhas begun to take shape reflecting the coalition government’s programme, Defra’s structural reform programme, ministerial decisions, and the spending review reform process (SR10). On 29 October, Defraoutlined a new strategic approach to forestry in England in a letter to Members of Parliament explaining the inclusion of powers for modernisation of forestry legislation in the Public Bodies Reform Bill[1]. The spending review reform process (SR10) and wider policy development, particularly the Natural Environment White Paper will further clarify this framework.
  1. We have begun working out what this implies for the way the FC should work as the organisation principally responsible to the Secretary of State for leading the delivery of policy for trees woods and forests. This is being fed back into the policy process via Defra and is being used to inform ourdelivery of SR10.
  1. Below we set out our thinking on what the framework implies for:
  • desired outcomes, i.e.: the “changes in the real world” that would flow from applying the policy;
  • how the FC should work to achieve these outcomes; and
  • the broad priority functions of the FC.

Outcomes for trees, woodlands and forestry in England

  1. Analysis of the policy context so far suggests the following outcomes:
  • The entire woodland resource will be functioning as part of a more integrated approach to land management.
  • The woodland resource will be larger and better managed providing goods and services of value to society. For example, storing carbon, producing timber and woodfuel, helping society and wildlife adapt to climate change, conserving biodiversity, and encouraging healthy physical activity and enjoyment of the natural environment.
  • The woodland resource will be larger and also more resilient. For example, it will be able to cope with climate change, pests and diseases, and pressures from society.
  • The forestry sector will be competitive, thriving and resilient including many sustainably managed woods operating as parts of viable land-based businesses.
  • There will be strong connections between the resource and landowners, business, civil society, and local communities. Thesegroupswill havethe capacity and connections to work with the resource to deliver goods and services and take opportunities. The nature and level of these goods, services and opportunities will reflect the high values people place on trees, woods and forests.

Implications for how the FC will work to achieve these outcomes.

  1. The Government is committed to shifting the balance of power from ‘Big Government’ to ‘Big Society’ by giving individuals, businesses, civil society organisations and local authorities a much bigger role in protecting and enhancing the natural environment and a much bigger say about the priorities for it.
  2. By shifting the emphasis to the Big Society, the Government will focus on what only Government can do. In relation to forestry, the Government’s role will be focussed on policy, research, regulation and technical advice and creating enabling frameworks (see below). The implication is that our approach to delivery will have the following features:
  • Business, civil society, and local communities will be more involved in deciding, delivering, and resourcing priorities for action.
  • We will work with these groups to develop widely endorsed ‘enabling frameworks’ . An ‘enabling framework’ is how we are expressing the way we need to work with fewer resources while still ensuring the outcomes we want are achieved by giving others the ability to change what they do themselves. They would be composed of clear principles for prioritisation (some with spatial frameworks), risk based regulation, expert advice, standards, effective and efficient grant mechanisms, and partnerships. However, they would not dictate the response of landowners, business, and civil society but enable these groups to make informed choices about how they respond and the opportunities they take. The frameworks would enable these locally determined priorities to sit alongside national and international priorities and the general direction of travel provided by overarching policy.
  • We may undertake wider and shallower intervention across the entire woodland resource, with deep and narrow intervention in situations of greatest need.
  • We will support business, landowners, civil society, and people in general to engage with the enabling frameworks. The sector would need a variety of ownership and management types and have appropriate skills and relationships with government, land, and with each other. It would need to be flexible, diverse and have enough critical mass to be resilient to change, such as climate change and the economic cycle.
  • We will support landowners to take up sustainable forest management across their whole woodland where the goods and services flow from viable woodland based business rather than from government intervention. We will treat woodlands as part of a more integrated land management approach so that wider opportunities are captured (e.g. planting to improve water quality or enhance whole-farm economics).
  • The FC would place less emphasis on direct intervention, multiple interventions to generate multiple benefits, and complex regulation attempting to control the delivery of specific benefits from woodland.[2]

Implications for the broad priority functions of the FC.

  1. The outcomes and new approaches to delivery imply that the FC will organise its work around the following broad priority functions:
  • Protection and increasing the resilience of the resource so goods and services of value to society are safeguarded. For example, through increased biosecurity and better adaptive management for climate change.
  • Improvement (or more sustainable forest management) of the resource so goods and services of value to society increase. For example, providing standards and wider engagement of owners and managers with those standards, supporting an economically resilient and viable forestry sector, focussed delivery in areas of greatest need (e.g.: on SSSIs, in deprived areas), and supporting more sustainable management of woodland without reliance on increased public funding. This could be through new mechanisms for private finance, through enabling woodlands to be managed as parts of viable land-based businesses or through social enterprise.
  • Expansion of the woodland resource as part of wider land management. For example, through private finance, regulation, grants, and public engagement.
  • Empowering and enablingpeople so that those who are effected most by trees and woodland have the greatest influence, from landowners to local communities depending on the situation. This could mean, for example, we might focus effort on community involvement in deprived areas where people are less likely to have the power to make choices without government support.

Next Steps

  1. Our analysis reflects consideration by FC England National Committee and internal debate. It is subject to change as SR10 develops. We will work with Defra colleagues to refine our analysis through discussions within the FC and with other organisations we need to work with. When appropriate within the SR10 process we will begin to communicate it more widely. We will keep you informed of developments.

Recommendations.

  1. That you discuss our analysis and feed any comments back to Policy and Programmes Group.[3] We are particularly interested in your comments on the broad priority functions for the FC.

Dominic Driver

Policy and Programmes Group, FC England

2 November 2010

Page 1

[1]

[2] Note that the (previous) Government’s Strategy for England’s Trees, Woods and Forests and its Delivery Plan (ETWF) are no longer appropriate as organisers of our work, although many of the objectives remain relevant.

[3]Regional Directors: please upload comments to basecamp or send to .