| | THE ROLE OF THE FORESTRY COMMISSION IN IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY |
| 7.1 | Through the responses there is general support for the role of the Forestry Commission, although it was noted that the FC is vulnerable to changes in government policy (170). In a few cases it was suggested that there should be fundamental reorganisation with amalgamation of the FC with other rural agencies in order to deliver integrated rural development (Chapter 2). One other view was that the FC should be restructured to "provide a vibrant new entity with a clear remit devoted to the service of Wales, removed from the lines of control, policy and management of Edinburgh" (149). |
| 7.2 | The future role of FC in implementing the strategy was not widely discussed although key roles that were identified included: - forming partnerships with other key players in the implementation of the strategy This was strongly emphasised by a wide range of respondents (eg 93,99,196);
- acting as a centre of excellence for the dissemination of best practice, capable of balancing commercial requirements with wider public benefits (10);
- stimulating research and development;
- providing training (eg 61, 89);
- encouraging public participation and actively promoting community employment initiatives, including the encouragement of new economic initiatives in afforested areas (104)..
|
| | THE ROLE OF FOREST ENTERPRISE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE FOREST ESTATE |
| | The Sale of the Public Forest Estate |
| 7.3 | In total 45 respondents considered the future sale of land held by Forest Enterprise. Within this there was a further breakdown into: Stop selling 3
Continue to sell 8
Purchase new land 13
Plant on a rolling programme 4 |
| 7.4 | Where reference is made to selling, the desire is to see careful rationalisation which does not affect the critical mass of the public estate, with disposal only of those woodlands that could be equally well managed by the private sector. Funds raised could then be ring fenced for both public and private woodland creation (166). It is equally suggested by Forestry Advisors that forests could be sold outside core areas and transferred to local communities or others where there is a public benefit (105). As noted by the Wildlife Trusts for Wales "the idea put forward by the Assembly of shifting public ownership from remote upland areas to more accessible lowland areas has some worth in our view". Further it is suggested that public woods could become community woods managed by a community trust network (113) or Development Trust (135). |
| 7.5 | A more radical approach is suggested by Sustainable Forest Management, who propose that Forest Enterprise should be privatised, with only the timber stock sold and the solum remaining a State asset. One respondent suggests (28) that the public forest estate could be developed for residential and industrial use in suitable locations. |
| 7.6 | Where there is resistance to further sales of the public estate, this is very strongly expressed - "CPRW wishes to raise a strongly felt concern about the current policy of the disbursement of the NAW forest assets". It is also noted by the Welsh National Parks that " it is naïve to imagine that disposal of FC woodlands could fund as many benefits through the private sector". |
| | Management of the Public Forest Estate |
| 7.7 | There was a widespread view amongst respondents and at the workshops that the public estate should be managed as an exemplar of best practice in silvicultural techniques and multi-purpose benefit - Flagship Forestry. It was noted that in the past Forest Enterprise has pioneered informal leisure and recreational developments such as Beddgelert Forest Park, trails within Gwydyr Forest, information centres at Nant y Arian and Garwnant, and scenic car trails in the eastern South Wales Valleys, and these provide the basis for the next round of exemplar developments. For example, Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council believes that the introduction of Continuous Cover Forestry in these woodlands would greatly increase their recreational value. |
| 7.8 | It was noted, however, that FE can only spend from surplus timber receipts and therefore providing a monetary value to non-market benefits is needed if the public forest estate is to deliver the full range of benefits expected of public woodland. |
| 7.9 | There was a view expressed by a number of woodland managers, that public ownership means responsibility and, as stated by Tir Coed, FE should consult more widely on the management of its estate - "The National Assembly should direct Forest Enterprise to engage more fully with communities in the way envisaged in the Tir Coed Strategy Report". Taking this a stage further it was suggested that the Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise should form partnerships in the management of community woodlands (175) or even lease land to local communities for local initiatives (89). |
| | THE ROLE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY(S) |
| 7.10 | There was a widely held view across the 60 respondents that addressed this issue, that local authorities should have an active involvement in a future Welsh woodland strategy, particularly because of their ability to impart a regional influence on policy. |
| 7.11 | It was recognised that local authorities can give grant and own and manage woodland. It was also noted that local authorities, as major consumers of woodland products, (eg landscape furniture) should make an undertaking to 'buy Welsh'. Nevertheless a key focus of the comments was in the area of planning, |
| | Planning for Woodlands |
| 7.12 | It was noted that, to be effective, a Welsh woodland strategy, must form an integral part of the Assembly's strategic planning framework, and changes of land into and out of forestry could usefully be reflected in Countryside Strategies and Unitary Development Plans prepared by local authorities. One representative of the industry suggested that local authorities should designate areas for commercial afforestation within their district (46). |
| 7.13 | There was also some debate over development control and forestry development. One or two respondents wanted future woodland planting to be brought under full planning control while one or two in the forestry industry wanted clearer definition of those aspects of forestry activity considered as permitted development. There was also a specific request that timber processing, as a legitimate rural enterprise, should be allowed in rural locations - the refusal of planning permission for the BSW plant at Newbridge-on-Wye was cited by a number of respondents. It was also felt more generally that current planning policies placed an unnecessary constraint on rural diversification activities. A few suggested that planners should lift their 'no go' attitude to housing and built development within woodlands. |
| | Community Enabling |
| 7.14 | The other key role identified for local authorities was in community enabling. It was recognised that through Countryside Management Services, the activities of AONB officers and work through Agenda 21, local authorities have strong contacts with local communities and can provide a link with woodland activity, especially with the development of community woods close to urban areas. |
| | THE ROLE OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN THE FUTURE OF WOODLANDS |
| 7.15 | As discussed in preceding chapters, there is a strong feeling across the majority of sectors that community involvement is essential in the development and implementation of a woodland strategy for Wales, to meet its sustainable and multi-functional aims. For example: "The new strategy should take account of the wishes and aspirations of the people of Wales. The public should be invited to see themselves as stakeholders in the state forests, and private forest owners should themselves be encouraged to provide greater public access" (Sustainable Forest Management). |
| 7.16 | It is suggested that community involvement must be taken more seriously if continued public support for forestry is to be maintained. It is widely felt, particularly amongst local authority and individual responses, that local communities should have a greater say in the management of their local woods. There was a minority view though, amongst forestry advisors, that "the involvement of people is already adequately catered for, and excessive consultation with the general public will make rational decisions harder" |
| 7.17 | The involvement of the community in continental Europe was often cited as a role model that the Welsh strategy would do well to acknowledge. |
| 7.18 | A limited number of potential mechanisms for community involvement were highlighted including: - establishment of community woodland schemes close to centres of population as already mentioned;
- school group woodland planting;
- establishing a Forestry Corps funded by the Assembly to carry out management work, particularly on urban sites (8);
- local community input as part of a sub-group of Agenda 21;
- dissemination through local papers;
- using similar techniques to those employed by Tir Coed in the Ystwyth Valley.
|
| 7.19 | it should be stressed that in developing and taking forward the woodland strategy for Wales, a far wider range of interests will need to be involved (as identified in Chapter 2) than noted above. In particular the forestry industry and the voluntary sector will need to be involved. This final Chapter has primarily focused on the question raised in the consultation document - "How should local communities and Unitary Authorities be involved" |
| | |
| | |
| | |