Where are the trees? It seems an obvious question standing in the middle
of Britain’s National Forest in the Midlands. All around are gravel pits
and mining villages, reservoirs and wheat fields – but few trees.
The National Forest initiative was launched by the government’s Countryside
Commission three years ago, amid grand talk of reforesting Britain. It could
become, as the Countryside Commission calls it, ‘one of the most ambitious
and imaginative environmental projects of this century and the next’. It
could mark a new beginning for the ancient woodlands of oak and ash, birch
and willow that once covered 80 per cent of the English lowlands.
Or it may not. From next April, the government has announced, a new
publicly owned company, as yet unnamed, will take over the running of the
forest from the Countryside Commission. Pressure is mounting to use the
forest as cover, literal and metaphorical, for lucrative but environmentally
destructive activities, such as open-cast mining or a national centre for
motor sports. And a revision of government grants for forestry, announced
in July, aims to maximise timber production by reducing the space between
trees in broad-leaved woodlands, squeezing out wildlife and ramblers alike.
Advertisement
Woodland mosaic
A thousand years ago, a squirrel could cross England from the Severn
through the Midlands to the Wash without setting foot on the ground. But
today Britain is one of the least forested countries in Europe, with only
10 per cent of its land covered by trees. The idea of replanting some of
that ancient woodland has struck a chord.
Environment secretary John Gummer insists that the National Forest embodies
a British commitment to ‘sustainable development – environment improvement
which will also bring economic regeneration’. This sentiment is in tune
with the declarations of the Earth Summit. Announcing the new company to
run the forest in July, Gummer promised that ‘the forest will provide a
national asset of the same kind as the ancient Forest of Dean or the New
Forest’. And it will have a series of smaller siblings – a dozen or more
community forests earmarked for the urban fringes of cities from Bristol
to Glasgow.
The National Forest is to be a working forest covering 500 square kilometres
of land over three Midlands counties. Flanked to west and east by the existing
Needwood and Charnwood forests, the heart of the forest is a mixture of
farmland, run-down mining villages and mostly derelict coal workings stretching
from Burton upon Trent to the outskirts of Leicester. The dream is to transform
this area within a generation into a ‘woodland mosaic’ of farms, open country
and villages. The forest would be part ecological, part commercial, part
recreational. Coppices would coexist with open-cast mines, wildlife meadows
with theme parks, woodland trails with commercial plantations.
‘We aim to plant around 30 million trees on about a third of the land,’
says Susan Bell, director of the small unit set up in 1991 by the Countryside
Commission to begin creating the forest. Two-thirds of the planting will
be in the first decade. ‘If this project is to succeed, things must be
seen to happen quickly.’ But so far, she is well behind schedule. After
three years, she has managed just half a million trees, with 100 000 of
those planted by the Department of Transport on roadside verges – not quite
the original idea.
Green groups cluster around the National Forest. The Council for the
Protection of Rural England (CPRE) backs it. The Woodland Trust, a small
charity dedicated to creating new areas of woodland across Britain, has
six woods within the forest area and has seconded a staff member, Amanda
Callard, to Bell’s development team. Callard says: ‘We see ourselves as
a main implementing agency for the planting of the National Forest.’
Meanwhile, Forest Enterprise, the forest management arm of the publicly
owned Forestry Commission, is investing in the National Forest as part of
its pledge to switch from upland conifer plantations into broad-leaved woods
in the English lowlands. And British Coal, which owns 10 per cent of the
land in the forest, has agreed a ‘charter’ to rehabilitate old open-cast
mines so trees can be planted on them.
So what is the hold-up? Where are the trees?
One problem is that the National Forest team doesn’t buy land itself,
or plant trees. It seeks ‘partners’, and arranges grants. But, almost since
its inception, Whitehall shuffling has left many of the potential partners
uncertain about their future. Everything is on hold.
Forest Enterprise, after being under threat of privatisation for 18
months, is now under another cloud. It is to be reformed in the public sector
as ‘a new trading body. . .on a more business-like footing’, Ian Lang,
the Secretary of State for Scotland, announced in July. British Coal and
its land will be sold to the private sector within the year. Meanwhile its
forest ‘charter’ is on hold. Local councils face reorganisation. And suspicious
farmers wait for more planting grants and anticipate that Whitehall will
persuade the European Union to allow tree planting on set-aside farmland.
When Bell comes to call, everyone replies: ‘Great idea, but not now, please.’
Line on the map
As a result, after three years the National Forest is still little more
than a line on the map. To add to the troubles, the romantic vision of
recreating ancient woodland managed for environmental benefit is under siege.
The evolving plan, as unveiled in a consultation paper published by the
Countryside Commission last autumn, has more to do with economics than ecology.
Less than 6 pages out of a 50-page review concern nature conservation or
creation of new habitats. ‘People were surprised at the level of economic
development proposed in the plan,’ admits Bell. ‘Perhaps earlier versions
had not stressed this. But given where the forest is, and the kinds of partners
we have, it is inevitable. The area has been hit by the decline of deep
mines and everybody wants economic recovery.’
If the forest is to be a catalyst for creating new jobs, wealth and
a dynamic economy by weaving forestry with agriculture, leisure, tourism
and new rural industries, what kind of development is envisioned? Will the
forest be anything more than a pleasing backdrop? Can it play an organic
role in reviving the area? Equally, given the reluctance of the government
to get its hands dirty by actually planting trees, who will do the planting,
and for what motives?
The three areas of economic activity in the region are likely to be
open-cast mining, forestry and leisure activities. The forest will mostly
be planted on former mining land and farms. Old mineral workings are an
undoubted opportunity. ‘They provide a fluidity of land use and ownership
that we can take advantage of,’ says Bell. ‘It’s part of the reason we are
here.’ As mines are worked out, she hopes, Forest Enterprise will take them
over to plant wooded areas with public access. First on the list are Desford
Colliery and nearby Heather, currently the largest open-cast mine in Western
Europe but due for closure.
There is widespread coal and clay mining in the centre of the area,
plus hard-rock quarrying in the existing Needwood and Charnwood forests,
and sand and gravel taken from the flood plain of the River Trent. ‘Mining
will continue to be a major activity within the forest,’ says Bell. ‘The
case for (minerals) development is certainly strengthened if the developer
can show a benefit to the national forest.’
This kind of talk sets alarm bells ringing with environmentalists. ‘A
clear trade-off is implied here,’ says Ben Plowden, the CPRE’s land use
officer. ‘Promises to plant trees will win permission to mine that would
not otherwise be given.’ That is a ‘reasonable fear’, admits Bell. ‘But
it depends how robust the planning authorities are.’ She advises them but
has no final say.
On land already covered by permits to mine, developers will want other
inducements to plant trees. Eventual permission to build money-spinning
‘leisure developments’ is the main carrot. One obvious model is the Alton
Towers theme park. Britain’s largest tourist attraction, the park is less
than 20 kilometres from the edge of the forest. And it is built on old mining
slag.
What else? The forest could easily become a dumping ground for noisy,
troublesome neighbours. As the consultation paper puts it: ‘The Forest could
offer new opportunities for outdoor pursuits like motor sports, which cannot
easily find sites.’ One idea is to develop a national centre for motor sports.
Bell also envisions motorised water sports on the local reservoirs. Other
suggestions include golf courses, holiday villages and war games.
The plan states that such initiatives ‘would benefit from being sited
in a wooded setting’. Indeed. But it is less clear which activities would
benefit the forest, and which would damage it. Environmentalists want to
encourage leisure activities that are truly part of the forest, rather than
sited there for convenience.
Cohabitation
Timber production should clearly be an essential feature of any forest,
especially in Britain, the second largest importer of wood in the world.
And the idea is to create the National Forest as a genuine working forest,
not an ersatz theme-park version. The intention is for it to be a multi-functional
forest, where wildlife and visitors can cohabit with timber production and
use.
But this aim may be threatened by the government’s latest forestry grant
schemes, also unveiled by Lang in July, in which the nascent ‘greening’
of British forestry appears to have fallen off the government’s agenda.
There is a ‘major boost to conifer planting’ with ‘tougher timber output
targets’ for Forest Enterprise. And, potentially most damaging of all, Lang
warned that in areas where broad-leaved trees are planted, which will include
the National Forest, ‘we will require a higher stocking density in order
to qualify for the full rate of grant’.
Bell believes the density of her future broad-leaved woodlands could
double as a result. Overnight, her idea of small, accessible woodlands,
with room for people as well as trees, could have been destroyed, replaced
by a few areas of high-density forest. ‘The government may say that it retains
the ideal of multipurpose forests,’ says Plowden, ‘but what exactly can
you do in a double-density forest apart from grow trees?’
Lost opportunities
Plowden identifies ‘a lack of an overall design vision’ for the forest.
With discussion focused on the economics of the National Forest, says Plowden,
there is little attention being paid to fundamental questions about what
the forest should be like biologically. Last year’s National Forest discussion
paper said planting should favour broad-leaved trees over conifers by about
6 to 4, and that 10 per cent of the forest should be oak. But that is about
it.
‘Natural forests were never as uniform as is often believed,’ says Plowden.
‘The National Forest represents an opportunity to plant woodlands which
reflect natural diversity.’ An obvious opportunity is the flood plain and
valley of the River Trent, in the west of the forest. Why not recreate a
flood plain woodland of the kind that has virtually disappeared from England,
where willow, alder and black poplar could prosper. Yet engineers at the
National Rivers Authority claim this would lead to flooding and persuaded
forest staff to avoid planting on the flood plain.
Bell owns up. ‘You are right,’ she says. ‘There is no ecological overview.’
But she blames the ecologists for this. ‘We had a nature conservation working
group. They were very protectionist about safeguarding existing wildlife
sites. But they were not good at thinking about creating something new.
We must be much more positive about that.’
The rush to create a visible forest as quickly as possible, Bell also
admits, means there is no fully developed strategy either for managing existing
woodlands, such as the Charnwood and the Needwood forests, or for the natural
regeneration of new woodland. Many biologists would prefer a forest created
by natural regeneration, much as environmentalists in the Scottish Highlands
are attempting to revive the last remnants of the ancient Caledonian pine
forest.
The issue most likely to create conflict in the forest, though, is public
access. The large areas of former mining land and the Woodland Trust sites
are likely to be open to the public after planting. But most of the rest
may remain closed to the public, except where they pay to enter for some
activity.
‘The National Forest is not and never will be like the New Forest,’
says Bell, happily contradicting Gummer. For one thing, the New Forest is
a Royal Forest, owned by the Crown and with widespread access for the public.
The National Forest has numerous owners – most of them extremely suspicious
of the forest, says the CPRE’s Callard, who spends her time trying to persuade
them to plant trees.
‘To make the forest work,’ says Bell, ‘there will have to be a major
conversion of farmland to forests.’ That is where most of the 30 million
trees will be planted. But, she adds, ‘farmers don’t see the benefit of
mass visitors. It is high on the list of things they are fearful of about
the forest, and we have to be realistic.’ With only two farmers having planted
any trees to date, she says that grants will not be made dependent on access
agreements.
So what could people wandering through the National Forest find? One
possibility, certainly, is a series of trails running through fenced commercial
forests with ‘keep out’ signs, skirting round tastefully screened open-cast
mines and linking a small number of ‘open access’ sites, most of which will
be the centres of money-making leisure activities.
Other possibilities can already be glimpsed on the fragments of forest
being planted. In the Trent Valley near Barton-under-Needwood, a former
wheat field was planted with fast-growing white poplar this spring on a
‘demonstration plot’ created with government funding by scientists from
the Forestry Authority, the research and regulatory arm of the Forest Commission.
‘This is cash cropping, red in tooth and claw,’ said Paul Tabbush, principal
silviculturalist at the authority’s research division, as he strode past
rows of new, fast-growing poplar clones. They will be 10 metres tall within
four years, and ready for felling within 20 years. ‘We want to demonstrate
to farmers that they can make money from planting trees.’
This Barton site also demonstrates the kind of trade-off in forest planting
that environmentalists fear. Planting here was a condition of planning consent
for what is happening over the fence in the next field. Here there is a
giant hole where mechanical diggers have removed the topsoil to get at rich
gravel deposits beneath. When the gravel is removed, the hole will be flooded
to create a new marina – part of the leisure boom promised for the forest.
A second demonstration project is on 13 hectares of the old Desford
Colliery near Bagworth. The pit head is long gone, marked by a muddy pool
in a depression by the road. But beyond are the remains of the old slag
heaps, reclaimed with topsoil but still polluted with red iron pyrites,
and very acid in places. To help trees grow here, Tabbush’s team has added
up to 12 tonnes of lime to every hectare of soil. In the spring, oak, ash,
birch and poplar were planted in an effort to recreate natural English
woodland on the poisoned soil. By mid-summer, the results were decidedly
mixed. In places the saplings had grown well, but many trees were brown
and desiccated. ‘Some of them are going to struggle in this stuff,’ said
Tabbush. Planting trees on poisoned derelict land is no guarantee that
a forest will grow.
A third, more hopeful vision of the forest is growing at Rosliston Farm.
The 60-hectare site is the nearest thing so far to the multi-functional
‘community woodland’ that inspired the National Forest. The farm, bought
by Forest Enterprise and South Derbyshire District Council, will focus on
timber production, wildlife protection, nature trails and a craft centre.
The car park is finished. The visitors’ centre, the first in the National
Forest, is half-built. The trees are sprouting. And the local community
has responded, adopting the future woodland as its own, and forming a Friends
of Rosliston group. ‘This is what many of us hope that the forest will be
like,’ says Callard.
The National Forest does not sit in isolation. The government is planning
at least 12 community forests close to urban areas, each covering more than
100 square kilometres and containing in all probably 100 million trees.
The Great North Forest is one of three with business plans approved by the
government. It is intended to become a green wedge of land in a part of
Tyne and Wear that is blighted by old coal mines.
‘The forest was one of those great Thatcherite ideas of the 1980s,’
says ‘Pitch’ Wilson, former miner, countryside campaigner and a member of
the forest board. ‘A brilliant idea, but with no funding attached. Everything
would be done for next to nowt, through trusts and sponsorship and so on.’
Lean times
But new planting in the first three years of the Great North Forest
has covered only 100 hectares. At this rate the forest will take several
hundred years to plant. ‘Nothing serious will happen,’ says Wilson, ‘until
there is proper public funding and a proper sense of continuity about the
±è°ù´ÇÂá±ð³¦³Ù.’
The big question is whether these initiatives form part of a strategy
that will genuinely increase the forest cover and public access to forests
in Britain. The need to make British forestry policy work is great. Over
the past five years, the number of trees planted has fallen while existing
woodland is increasingly neglected.
The main reason, say foresters, was a tax reform introduced by chancellor
Nigel Lawson in 1988. Ironically, it was inspired by environmentalists dedicated
to halting the expansion of industrial conifer plantations across British
uplands. In the mid-1980s, several private companies planted large forests
in Scotland as tax shelters for the wealthy who claimed against income tax
the cost of maintaining their young conifer plantations on Scottish hillsides.
The outrage of environmentalists gave the Treasury the excuse it needed
to close this tax loophole. But while this cut the number of conifers planted
on uplands, it also cut the supply of cash from the City for managing broad-leaved
forest in the lowlands – the trees the environmentalists loved. ‘That decision
cost us many potential investors in the National Forest, and has damaged
forests and woodlands right across the country. Many have been effectively
abandoned,’ says Bell.
This July’s announcement of a revised forestry grant system, besides
reprieving the state forestry business from privatisation, included what
the Secretary of State for Scotland called ‘a major boost for conifer planting’.
But broad-leaved woodlands receive more sticks than carrots, with a tough
new commercial regime for Forest Enterprise and diktats on denser broad-leaved
woodlands. It could be extremely bad news for ‘sustainable development’
and ‘multi-functional’ forests – and for the National Forest.