|
|
| |
Broken Dragons |
Crime and Corruption
in today's China |
by Bruce Dalbrack |
A look at the darker side of the Chinese economic miracle |
Buy the book! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| In the summer of 2005 Scotland’s Forestry Commission invited responses from the public about Scotland's future forestry strategy and priorities. Twenty-two topics were considered from guiding strategy to increasing timber supply to the type of tree species best suited for Scotland. These are my responses |
|
|
|
Background
 Scotland has some of the world's grandest forestry. The government is trying to maximise its benefits. One of the ways is to ask for feedback. This page is my responses to the 2005 strategy review.
I think the exercise is an excellent project well managed by Scottish Forestry, but like all challenges can benefit from fine tuning.
Here is a quote from Mr Lewis MacDonald, MSP and Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development. It is from the preamble to this latest feedback exercise: We have been steadily restoring woodland cover in Scotland, although at 17% this is still much lower than most other countries in Europe. We have, though, begun to think more about where the trees should be so that we get the right ones in the right places at the right time, both for us now and for our children’s children. But the only way we are going to find out what people really want is to ask them. So please play your part in this Review and tell us what woodlands can do for you.
More information may be found at the Scottish Government or Forestry Commission websites. |
Top |
|
| 01) What do you think have been the best things to have happened in [Scottish] forestry since 2000? |
| 1) Greater connection with the Kyoto Convention on Climate Change. There is much more awareness that Scotland’s forests can play a global role in combating carbon emissions and rectifying harm caused by other pollutants. I suppose it is fitting that this review appears a few months after Kyoto has been ratified (early 2005).
2) Improved information. There has been much more sharing of information about Scottish forestry. The FC website is greatly improved and the ‘Enjoy Your Forests’ and ‘Forest Holidays’ initiatives are positive developments. Congratulations to the FC for these improvements.
Other developments such as right-to-roam and adjustments in right-to-buy are also important, and the more we increase responsible access to the land the better, but I would place them secondary to global developments and improved information. |
Top |
|
| 02) Has the Forestry Strategy failed to deliver anything important? |
| I don’t believe there have been huge holes in what the Forestry Strategy is delivering. In general terms, I doubt the FC have missed anything important.
Nevertheless this is a difficult question to answer in detail because the FC, I feel, has not released an easy-to-follow performance commitment. By easy-to-follow, I mean a simple checklist of targets about Scottish forestry and forestry management. As an example of what I can understand, Trees for Life are committed to regenerate 1,500 square kilometres of native woodland around Glen Affric in north-west Scotland. That is 10% of the old Caledonian Forest. Clearly ambitious but also very clear. Similarly, the Community Forests in England have made a commitment to increase forest cover from 7% to 30% by 2020.
For me, the FC does not quite have this clarity for Scotland. This is not to say there are no goals. They are there. But I find it difficult to follow them. Without an easy-to-follow score sheet it is tough to speak sensibly about what was the ambition of the original strategy and what has been the reality. |
Top |
|
| 03) Is the broad content of the current Forestry Strategy still relevant and appropriate? |
| Absolutely yes. Forests now account for nearly one-fifth of Scotland and should count for more; hopefully they will count for more. It is vital to have a strategy for managing so much of our country’s natural assets; hopefully more heads than one will count for more. |
Top |
|
| 04) Are any changes now required to the Forestry Strategy’s Vision, Guiding Principles and Strategic Directions? If so what are they? |
 I think the FC is pushing in the right direction and seem to be active in getting people involved. This review is one such example of an open-minded attitude. However, I feel two areas would benefit from more emphasis:
1) Closer connection with Community Forest (CF) initiatives. The CF approach, where local interests co-operate to make better use of natural assets that are near to them, seems a way forward on many fronts: education; more efficient use of infill plots or marginal forest; experiments in different forestry applications; spiritual dimensions, even, by bringing forests closer to people in urban or suburban settings who would otherwise never experience touchy-feely forestry.
Specifically, I would like to see a performance target for identifying ten (at least) more community forests in Scotland of at least ten hectares. Ideally they would be as rich in ferns or lichens or other plant life as they are in trees. CFs already achieved in England such as Watling Chase and Forest of Avon may be used as a model though hopefully Scotland can top their projects with our own creativity.
2) More emphasis on job exchange programmes. Scotland has some of the answers in forestry but does not, and will not, have all the answers. Much as I consider Scotland to be God’s own country populated by more geniuses per square km than anywhere else on earth this shortcoming is inevitable. As more and more countries connect more responsibly with their forestry we should be alive to learning from them. A useful way forward is exchange programmes with other countries that have done well or are trying fresh approaches in forestry. Or, perhaps, are mucking it up right royal – it is no harm to learn from the mistakes of others.
Specifically, I would like to see five (at least) exchange jobs per year dedicated to furthering this vision, focussed on forestry professionals and spread between several foreign countries and over sufficient months to make them worthwhile but not so many months that they disconnect participants from their original work. Three months sounds about right. The USA strikes me as well advanced in educating communities about sharing land use. They also speak a form of English that is vaguely intelligible. This should be a country with which we have job exchanges. Canada and New Zealand are also doing well in my subjective opinion, though in New Zealand’s case the English is often unintelligible and there are too many sheep for comfort.
The important thing is that we have a system to inject fresh ideas and thinking into this vision from outside the British Isles. |
Top |
|
| 05) Should any of the existing Priorities for Action be dropped? If so, which ones? |
| I cannot answer as I am not clear what the Priorities for Action are. My apologies. |
Top |
|
| 06) Should there be any new Priorities for Action? If so what should they be? |
| Please see my answer to Question 5. Thank you. |
| Top |
|
| 07) Is an appropriate balance being achieved between the economic, environmental and social aspects of forestry? If not, please give specific examples. |
| Things are better than before but Scotland is still defined by our history – too defined, probably. Scotland has ravaged our forestry assets since the onset of the industrial era, which is to say mostly English landowners plundered our trees so the Royal Navy could make an Empire and give Scots places to emigrate to (perhaps a quid pro quo there) and English industry could activate global warming. Since then the economic aspect has persistently dominated Scottish forestry. Thankfully there is now greater awareness about balancing all aspects of forestry but the attitude of take-take-take has still not been neutered. Scots, I should add, may not be entirely guilty of past mistakes but we are not entirely innocent of present mistakes either.
Specifically, I would recommend three actions:
1) More forest visits
More talk and clarity about the number of Scots who have visited a forest at least once in the last year. And this must not only mean a quick leak along the A7 having been caught short between service stations. This has to be proper days in the country or school visits. What is this figure? I am sure it exists in some form but is it widely used? We must be clear that it is growing. With this connection between people and forests, proper visits with time spent to build an understanding and an enthusiasm, will come a foundation for balancing all aspects of forestry in the long run.
2) More environmental initiatives
Second, we need more talk of the number of environmental initiatives under way. Environmental initiatives include projects with innovative tree species or restoration of decayed woodland or experimental conservation practices. Anything really. Some may be whacky but the majority need to have real legs. How many are there? Where?
3) More success stories
Finally, more success stories need to be shared. Earlier I noted the FC website is great. If there is one thing that would make it even greater it would be success stories about balanced forestry. That includes economic gains, yes, but also real examples of forestry that has provided other gains. In particular we need success stories with non-timber applications – which is a fancy way of saying tricks that make money other than selling trees – that may be easily transferred. If we are not sharing new principles and tricks about balanced forestry, then we’re part of the problem. |
Top |
|
| 08) Do you agree that the Scottish Forestry Strategy should be focused primarily on increasing the benefits of forestry to the people of Scotland? |
| Not necessarily. First, any benefits of forestry should go to the ‘majority of people of Scotland’ rather than just people from Scotland. This might sound a little technical but I think we should always be clear that simply being a Scot and an owner of Scottish forestry doesn’t create inalienable rights to extract every possible economic benefit without regard to wider concerns. We are better at communicating this, and landowners are better at appearing to think more communally, but we still have a way to go. People have responsibilities to the greater good.
For me, Scottish forestry is more than just about our country. Scotland has always been a part of the international community, sometimes for the good and sometimes not, and we must continue playing our part, too, in international forestry. It may be that we need to increase certain species, native or introduced, or initiate coppicing experiments or try out new fibreboard manufacturing experiments that have less immediate benefits for Scottish people but which are relevant and helpful for the world at large. Scotland can help, in fact we have a duty to help, ignite understanding and passion for making forestry sustainable around the world. If global forestry prospers, and with it global sustainability, Scotland will never lose. Plus we might have a realistic chance to make the English look a little lame, which is not going to happen on the rugby pitch for some time to come. |
Top |
|
| 09) Should woodlands play a greater role in helping Scotland deal with climate change? If so, how? |
| Clearly yes. I suppose the most practical way forward is for Scotland to generate income through schemes like the EU Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme or other trading mechanisms that are emerging after Kyoto.
Many a slip twixt cup and lip. I have not seen these schemes work in practice but am concerned who gets the accrued income from growing trees in lieu of carbon emissions? How much of that cash gets back to the land? I hesitate to advocate more bureaucracy in any setting, in fact that is the worst thing we could do for forestry as a basic and unchallenged principle, but some simple and actionable and enforceable mechanism needs to be established. Income Scotland generates from carbon trading must result in more forest. With more forest comes more carbon trading. Ideally we should use the cash to encourage natural regeneration or colonisation where costs per ha of development are low and the species variety in the woodland is high.
To play this out to the logical and at once optimistic and pessimistic outcome, the more the world pollutes and the more the world is willing to pay for that pollution, the more forests and the more variety in Scotland’s forests. If the cash ends up entirely in the pockets of landowners that won’t help this rather ironic snowball gather momentum. |
Top |
|
| 10) What should be the role of forestry in sustainable rural development? |
 Clearly there is a role for forests and it is good to see the FC thinking this way. I think we would benefit from more pushing of the idea, actually it is a reality we need to face around the world, that forests may be necessary conditions for sustainable land use and development but they are not in themselves a sufficient condition. Just because we have a green looking forest with a few birds and something vaguely unusual does not mean we have sustainable development.
I think our children, like many adults, instinctively equate forests with trees. In reality we should all equate forests with eco-systems. Trees, yes, but also other food sources, roots, and habitats for animals, stablising sources for rivers, water catchments areas, and so on.
Specifically I would like to see the FC put greater emphasis on non-timber forest products (NTFPs). This may arise from new forms of animal husbandry, such as feral deer culling or introduced and new forms of wild pigs. Each of these sources of income – timber, meat, root foods – must be shown as arising from the forest and dependent on the forest surviving and prospering. |
Top |
|
| 11) How could forestry become more of an exemplar of sustainable development in Scotland? |
| This is a difficult area, though I feel answers will emerge from Community Forestry and NTFP. The more initiatives the better that involve several interests (I suppose the jargon would be involving multiple stakeholders).
Specifically, I would like the FC emphasise a little more that Scotland is an industrialised country. At the moment this is not stated too clearly. As a developed economy with stable and high urbanisation rates the amount of ‘sustainability’ we need to extract from forests is limited. Being realistic, our forestry is like other advanced countries and boils down to either cash from timber or cash from other incomes achieved with minimal capital expenditure.
Earlier I mentioned that Scotland might offer the world innovations with global benefits. This applies in sustainable development. I would hope that Scottish forestry is more than a giant Petri dish. But it is no harm to think like this if necessary. Scotland has a grand history of innovation in medicine and engineering and education and so many other areas. We even invented sevens rugby. So why don’t we be fast and nimble in pushing as a world leader in innovative techniques for sustainable development? |
Top |
|
| 12) How should Scotland respond to the opportunities presented by the increasing supply of timber from Scotland’s woodlands? |
| Don’t understand the question, sorry. |
Top |
|
| 13) How could the overall economic potential of Scotland’s woodlands be increased? |
| 1) Simplification of tax and grant regimes. Currently the way of extracting income from forestry via WGS of old and now the SFGS is better than it was, but remains complex. Only professionals have a chance of satisfying the FC, in my view. This cannot be efficient for Scotland in the long run, or indeed any country. To be a maximised economic asset, forestry has to connect openly and simply with all communities and individuals and not just professional foresters. (The latter are, by the way, somewhere around 0.2% of Scotland’s population and administering nearly 20% of our land. Sounds rather like absentee landlords in centuries past, does it not?)
2) Multiple revenue sources. The more we can move away from mono-cultural planting towards woodlands with diverse species and diverse food sources and incomes the better. It is easy to say this, I know, and it is often said. But the FC can help by pushing alternative sources of income. Currently on the web site, for example, there is nothing like ‘Increase income from non-timber products’ or ‘How to add 10% to per ha revenue by growing truffles’. We need more things like that. |
Top |
|
| 14) Should the private and public forestry sectors engage further in social issues such as deprivation, health, equality, and disability? If so, how? Where is this a high priority in Scotland? |
| One thing at a time. What Scottish forestry needs most is professional foresters and managers delivering simple and clear and successful management. Involving communities and non-foresters is obviously significant and must happen with due considerations and sensitivities, but the priorities must be on the forests. Forestry is not like running a library or a school where there is frequent contact with lots of people: we should not feel confined by political correctness. |
Top |
|
| 15) Has there been sufficient focus on the contribution of woodlands to the enhancement of our natural heritage? If not, what more needs to be done? |
 Unfortunately no, though this is no fault of the FC. We are still defined by our history. If there had been sufficient focus on forests as the defining feature of our natural heritage, of course, we would not have destroyed the ancient woodland in the 18th century or tolerated the over-planting of larch and sitka conifers in the 20th century. Between these two sad milestones, it seems to me that forestry has rarely been afforded its due within our natural heritage. Make that never been afforded its due within our natural heritage. The FC is trying to undo this and making some huge gains, all to be applauded, but they need more support from the public in pushing government to place forests higher up the food chain and get out of our old ways of thinking.
Education is one thing we certainly need more. But that has also been said before, in fact everyone says it, yet it is not always translated into action.
Specifically, I would welcome a policy commitment by the FC, and a reciprocal commitment by the Scottish Government, that within five years, every school in Scotland with more than a hundred pupils has ownership over woodland of at least 10 ha. The woodland must be within 30 minutes travelling distance. The forest would be used for educating children as they pass through school, allowing them to plant trees in their early years and return to see them growing in their later years. Older children could conduct science experiments. Currently the connection of children to forests circles around ad hoc visits. It is no surprise and hardly their fault that the sense of connection with forests, and a passion for what silviculture means as an industry, often remains un-ignited. |
Top |
|
| 16) Has there been sufficient focus on the contribution of woodlands to the enhancement of our cultural heritage? If not, what more needs to be done? |
| Please see Question 15 above. |
Top |
|
| 17) How can the forestry sector be better integrated with other land uses? |
| Harmonisation of grants and tax regimes with other agricultural applications would be a start. Why should grants for forestry be treated differently from grants for oil seed? Of course they have hugely different harvesting cycles but the idea is the same. So how come there is two totally different grant applications and two totally different sets of bureaucracy to handle two essentially similar acts?
Unifying procedures won’t be popular amongst some in the forestry community and amongst some in the agricultural community. That is natural and I am not envisaging a complete dismantling of jobs and departments, by any stretch. But I do think in forestry we must think radically, and we owe this to Scotland, if we are to reach a breakthrough in how silviculture integrates with agriculture and with other land uses and indeed how forests integrate with the people of Scotland.
It is perhaps like the idea of a flat tax. Such taxation sounds radical and few people like it to begin with. Yet as they learn more it turns out there is a lot worth investigating. A century ago even the idea of an FC was radical, it was the flat tax of its time, and landowners concluded instinctively that they had supremacy over everything. Look where that got us. And look, too, at the advances we have made by the radical step of an FC. Is it time to get radical again? |
Top |
|
| 18) How should we determine the appropriate extent and distribution of woodland in Scotland? How much woodland do we need? What type of woodland do we need and where do we need it? |
| I regret not understanding this properly. Historical norms must be one way forward. How much woodland has Scotland traditionally lived with? Are we under or over the usual average? Presumably we are under the usual average, but I wonder by how much. Per capita comparisons will also be helpful. Urbanisation rates must also come into the picture. Scotland is relatively less urbanised than England, especially in the north, so does this mean we can accommodate fewer forested hectares per person in southern Scotland because we have more forested hectares in the north of Scotland?
But these are only questions in reply to your questions, I am afraid. My apologies.
I would say one thing of the type of forestry: the more varied the better. Mixing stands of Scots pine with, for example, alder or ash is always great to see. Even mixing indigenous species like willow with introduced species like sycamore is acceptable to me and, I believe, helpful for forests. Nature never appears mono-cultural and accommodates new arrivals and yet it is strong and unyielding. We should follow this lead. Commercial pressures doesn’t always make these hopes possible, I recognise, but at least may we start with riparian planting that is mixed. We have to start somewhere in avoiding these rows and rows and more rows. |
Top |
|
| 19) Should regional priorities be reflected in the revised Strategy? If so, how? |
| This is ticklish. Accommodating regional needs and differences makes good sense and should be encouraged, especially as Scotland is so strikingly divided between an urbanised south and a rural north. Taken too far, though, and accepting regional differences becomes code for variable application of rules. Forestry-by-negotiation is not far behind. That disorder cannot be good for Scotland’s forests.
Earlier (Question 4) I suggested the importance of exchange programmes, particularly with American forestry. In this case I think the federal tussle with states-rights is something to be looked at closely, though not to be religiously copied. America seems unnecessarily litigious (translation: America has too many slimy lawyers) and the last thing we need for Scottish Forestry is a mesh of laws abused and manipulated by different parts of the country. Nevertheless, I think the American experience will reveal some useful pointers. |
Top |
|
| 20) Is the balance of support mechanisms for forestry about right? If not, how should it change? |
| I have no idea what a ‘support mechanism for forestry’ might be. |
Top |
|
| 21) Could forestry incentives be better focused on key priorities? If so, how? |
| Inevitably yes. But they must be kept simple and if focussing on priorities leads to an increase in bureaucracy or more complications in grant applications I would feel its best left alone. Please see Question 17. |
Top |
|
| 22) Do you have any additional comments that would help us with the review of the Scottish Forestry Strategy? |
| I have five additional comments.
1) Positive exercise. First, I would like to appreciate the efforts of the FC. This review has been well communicated and is more transparent than before. Even a few years back, exercises like this seemed unlikely. I think its fair to say this review suffers somewhat from design-by-committee where everybody gets to chip in. Sometimes that doesn’t help. But that is a small quibble – though please see my final point (5) below.
2) More specific figures and shorter milestones. Without figures to reveal where we are with forestry, or indeed anything agricultural or commercial, constructive comments are rare. No doubt it is even harder to manage without such assistance: ‘if you can’t measure it you can’t manage it’. I think this review would have been helped with clearer data on actions taken over the last five years. Ideally this would have been in table form on one sheet of paper – anything more and I tend to get lost. How many more trees have been planted? How many more forests are under responsible management? How many education sessions have been communicated to teachers and at schools? Simple metrics is what we need.
This document also states feedback ‘will extend over the next 10-15 years and beyond.’ Up to fifteen years sounds too long. A clearer commitment to review in five years, or not much longer than this, is what we need. 2010 for another review gets my vote.
3) Differentiate responses between landowners v land users. Forestry is greatly influenced by land ownership. Assessing responses by people according to whether they own forest or not will help the FC tailor their communications.
4) Franker recognition of past mistakes. Forestry is like all endeavours. It is pointless trying to improve the future without a candid appraisal of known mistakes and errors. Every wife in Scotland will no doubt confirm this. Before requesting feedback, I feel the FC should have summarised what went wrong in the past. This need not have been ruthlessly scientific and may have been quite general. But sight of this would help people like me, looking from the outside as interested observers, understand more where Scottish forestry has gone wrong in the past. That always leads to a better future.
5) Fewer questions. Twenty-two questions is rather a lot to have opinions about and some may be amalgamated with others. Question (5), for example, asks ‘Should any of the existing Priorities for Action be dropped?’. Question (6) asks ‘Should there be any new Priorities for Action?’. These could easily become one question about future priorities. Question (10) asks ‘What should be the role of forestry in sustainable rural development?’ and (11) asks ‘How could forestry become more of an exemplar of sustainable development in Scotland?’ These are a very similar same question asked in a different way. I have tried to answer them as much as possible, and also to seek the views of others before putting finger to keyboard. But my own view is that you should only ask people as many questions as they have fingers and thumbs – so, ten questions it is in 2010! |
Top |
|
| Respondent Information Form |
 Please complete the details below and return it with your response. This will help ensure we handle your response appropriately. Thank you for your help.
Name
Bruce Dalbrack
Address
Edinburgh, Scotland (though working overseas)
E-mail
bruce@(name of this website).com
1) Are you responding: (please tick one)
as an individual
on behalf of a group/organisation?
2a) Do you agree to your response being made available to the public (in the Scottish Executive library and on the Forestry Commission Scotland website)?
Yes
No, not at all We will treat your response as confidential
2b) Where confidentiality is not requested, we will make your response available to the public on the following basis (please tick one of the following boxes)
Yes, make my response, name and address all available
Yes, make my response available, but not my name or address
Yes, make my response and name available, but not my address
3) (applies for organisations)
4) We will share your response internally with other Scottish Executive policy teams who may be addressing the issues you discuss. They might wish to contact you again in the future, but we require your permission to do so. Are you content for the Scottish Executive to contact you again in the future in relation to this consultation response?
Yes (please via e-mail, thank you)
No, not at all We will treat your response as confidential |
Top |
|
|
| |
|
|
