.........
The
proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken
in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous
interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied
corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the
transcript.
|
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 10:32.
The meeting began at 10:32.
|
|
Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan
Buddiannau
Introductions, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
|
[1]
Simon Thomas: Galwaf y
Pwyllgor Newid Hinsawdd, Amgylchedd a Materion Gwledig yn ôl
i drefn, felly.
|
Simon
Thomas: Can I please call the Climate Change, Environment and
Rural Affairs Committee back to order?
|
|
10:33
|
|
Ymchwiliad i Reoli
Ardaloedd Morol Gwarchodedig yng Nghymru: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth Lafar
gydag Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros yr Amgylchedd a Materion
Gwledig
Inquiry into the Management Marine Protected
Areas in Wales:
Oral Evidence Session with the Cabinet Secretary for Environment
and Rural Affairs
|
|
[2]
Simon Thomas:
Rydw i’n croesawu y bore yma yr
Ysgrifennydd Cabinet i barhau â’n hymchwiliad ni i mewn
i ardaloedd gwarchodedig morol. Croeso mawr, felly, i Lesley
Griffiths. Os caf i jest ofyn i’r swyddogion ddatgan eu
henwau a’u swyddogaethau jest ar gyfer y cofnod hefyd, os
gwelwch yn dda.
|
Simon
Thomas: Can I welcome this morning the Cabinet Secretary to
continue with our inquiry on marine protected areas? Welcome,
therefore, to Lesley Griffiths. Can I ask the officers to introduce
themselves, please, for the record?
|
|
[3]
Mr Rees: Graham Rees, head of marine and fisheries
division.
|
|
[4]
Mr Fraser: Andy Fraser, deputy head of marine and fisheries
division.
|
|
[5]
Simon Thomas:
Diolch yn fawr. Felly, os ydych
chi’n hapus, fe awn ni jest yn syth at y cwestiynau ar yr
ymchwiliad. Tybed, i ddechrau, a fedrwch chi, Ysgrifennydd y
Cabinet, roi amlinelliad i’r pwyllgor bellach, yn wyneb y
ddeddfwriaeth amrywiol sydd yn y maes yma, gan gynnwys eich
deddfwriaeth eich hunan, y Ddeddf Llesiant Cenedlaethau’r
Dyfodol (Cymru) 2015, er enghraifft—beth yw ystyr rheoli
ardaloedd morol gwarchodedig i chi, a’r ffordd sydd gyda chi
fel Llywodraeth i wneud yn siŵr bod yr ardaloedd yma’n
cael eu rheoli’n briodol, ac i ba bwrpas?
|
Simon
Thomas: Thank you very much. So, if you are happy,
we’ll go straight into questions on the inquiry. Perhaps, can
I ask, to begin, Cabinet Secretary, could you give us an outline to
the committee, in light of the various legislation that exists in
this area, including your own legislation, the Well-being of Future
Generations (Wales) Act 2015, for example—what are we looking
at in terms of MPAs? What do they mean to you, and how are you, as
a Government, making sure that those areas are appropriately
managed, and to what purpose?
|
|
[6]
The Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs (Lesley
Griffiths): Obviously, we have got the two Acts that you refer
to: the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the
Environment (Wales) Act 2016, but I think, probably, we’ve
always had those sort of principles at the very heart of the
decisions we’ve taken in the marine environment. Obviously,
the objective is to maintain and enhance the resilience of our
ecosystems and the benefits they provide. The sea is highly mobile;
it’s a huge scale. I think it’s really important that
we work to ensure that we have the correct networks to protect our
seas. Graham always says, ‘There’s no boundaries in the
sea’, so it is really important that we make our
contribution, as I say, to be part of that healthy network. We need
to make sure that we have sustainable use of our seas. That’s
really important. One of the reasons I wanted to bring forward the
first national marine plan was to ensure that we have that
sustainable use and effective management.
|
|
[7]
Simon Thomas:
Mae nifer o’r pethau rydych chi
wedi sôn amdanyn nhw yn y fanna yn bethau y byddai pawb yn eu
croesawu, rwy’n credu, ond maen nhw yn dueddol, weithiau, o
weithio yn erbyn ei gilydd. Felly, mae pysgodfeydd yn gallu bod yn
erbyn amcanion cadwriaethol o bryd i’w gilydd. Felly, erbyn
hyn, gyda’r holl ardaloedd gyda gwahanol ddynodiadau,
gwahanol statws iddyn nhw—ac rydym ni wedi gweld y map o
foroedd Cymru, gyda’r holl wahanol lefelau yna o
safleoedd—beth sydd wrth wraidd chi fel Llywodraeth yn ceisio
cyrraedd fan hyn? Ai codi rhai o’r ardaloedd yma yn uwch o
ran statws ffafriol, neu ai creu rhwydwaith o ardaloedd sydd yn
gydlynus gyda’i gilydd ar gyfer pwrpas ecolegol? Beth yw eich
prif gymhelliant chi wrth gynllunio’n forol?
|
Simon
Thomas: Many things you have mentioned there, of course, are
issues that a lot of people would welcome, of course, but they do
tend, sometimes, to work against each other. So, for example,
fisheries can sometimes be opposed to conservation issues,
occasionally. So, by now, with all these different areas with the
different designations that they have and the different status that
they have—and we have seen the map of the Welsh seas with all
the different levels of the sites there—what do you think is
at the heart of your intention as a Government here? Are you trying
to raise the favourable status of some of these areas, or are you
trying to create a network of areas that are cohesive to an
ecological end? What is your main motivation there, in
planning?
|
|
[8]
Lesley
Griffiths:
I think it’s a bit of both;
it’s about getting the balance. You talk about fisheries and
conservation, and my strapline right across the portfolio,
really—the same in agriculture—is that it’s the
economy and it’s the environment, and it’s about
getting that balance between the two. So, it is really important
that we do raise favourable areas, that we maintain the condition
of favourable areas, and that we look if there’s anywhere
negative that needs to be improved. So, I think it is about getting
that balance. I don’t know if you want to say anything about
the map.
|
|
[9]
Mr
Rees: Yes. So, one of
the approaches that we have in
Wales, which I think is starting to be copied in other parts of the
UK, is to work much more collaboratively. So, we work very closely
with all marine users in terms of developing measures. We have a
number of stakeholder groups that help us to achieve that. In terms
of the network and its contribution, that’s really important
in terms of our OSPAR commitments, and we have to maintain the
network and make sure it’s functioning effectively. There are
a number of things that we’re doing in relation to that. So,
one of the things that we’re doing currently is working with
the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and all of the nature
conservation authorities around the UK, to develop a consistent way
to how we measure and monitor the marine protected areas. And that
will mean, then, collaboratively, the whole UK network is being
monitored in a consistent way, and we hope that that will start to
bear fruit later this year.
|
|
[10]
Simon
Thomas: Just on that, then,
Cabinet Secretary, with that monitoring going on, just from your
point of view, in three, four, five years, what would you like to
see happen in the areas? How would you know that you’d been
successful? Are you going to measure it by iconic species or are
you going to measure it by sustainable fisheries? What’s your
kind of measuring stick? Not that you can measure the seal with a
measuring stick, but—[Laughter.]
|
|
[11]
Lesley
Griffiths: That’s quite
a difficult question, but I suppose it’s about—. Going
back to what I was saying about maintaining the favourable
conditions and improving the areas that aren’t favourable at
the moment, I suppose that’s how you would want to see it
progress, obviously, and have more favourable conditions than we
have now.
|
|
[12]
Simon Thomas: Okay. Jenny Rathbone.
|
|
[13]
Jenny Rathbone:
It’s obviously a lot more difficult
to track what’s going on in the sea than it is to track
what’s going on in the land, and we have all these
overlapping different types of conservation zones—quite
complicated for both the public, and indeed for Assembly Members to
understand exactly how we should take forward the management of our
seas. The MPA steering group: several witnesses have told us that
they’ve come down in favour of recommending seven management
areas, each with a pot of about £50,000. Could you just tell
us what your response is to that, because that looks like a
coherent plan?
|
|
[14]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes. I support the recommendations that
have come out of the steering group—Graham chairs
it—and certainly, I think, they’ve looked at what the
priorities are. They’ve worked with NRW to have a forward
work programme, if you like, about what the priorities are from
NRW’s point of view. I also mentioned, or Graham mentioned,
about the JNCC as well—working with them. So, yes, I
absolutely support the work that the group does. I suppose
you’re the group that advises me the most of all the groups.
We do have several groups in this part of the
portfolio—
|
|
[15]
Simon Thomas: We had noticed. [Laughter.]
|
|
[16]
Lesley Griffiths:
But I think the steering group, which has
been in existence for about a year—
|
|
[17]
Mr Rees: Two years.
|
|
[18]
Lesley Griffiths:
—two years now—yes,
I’ve been in post a year—is probably the main
group.
|
|
[19]
Jenny Rathbone:
Fine. So, do you think that their
recommendation for seven
management areas is a good one, or not something that you’re
planning to take on?
|
|
[20]
Mr Rees: The group felt that would have been an ideal
approach, but were concerned that, because the responsibility for
looking after unprotected areas is shared across a number of
management groups, the groups would not be able to find the funding
to achieve that outcome. And also they were a bit concerned that
maybe the appetite wasn’t there across all of the management
groups to move in that direction.
|
|
[21]
Jenny Rathbone: Okay. But,
at the end of the day, the Government must be the lead authority on
this, and there’s been some concern that the Government
isn’t giving sufficient—either dedicating sufficient
resources to this important area, or giving sufficiently clear
leadership. And I wondered how that—
|
|
[22]
Lesley Griffiths:
Well, I think we are giving the
leadership. I think it’s a much more strategic approach that
the group have brought forward, which—as I say, I do support
and I respect their view. In relation to funding, well, you know,
I’ve only got what I’ve got, and I have to make sure
that I support every part of the portfolio, but I didn’t
think that the funding was a particular issue that had come
out.
|
|
[23]
Mr Rees: It was—
|
|
[24]
Lesley Griffiths: A concern.
|
|
[25]
Mr Rees: —the commitment amongst the other managing
authorities to be able to put money into this. I think what the
Minister then did was to write to all of them, in May this year, to
remind them of their responsibilities and how important it is they
do participate in this.
|
|
[26]
Jenny Rathbone:
Obviously, the Well-being of Future
Generations (Wales) Act 2015 obliges people to think in an
integrated and co-ordinated way. So, is it about resistance to
pooling budgets? Because we’ve heard evidence of people
working together quite effectively when we went to Milford
Haven.
|
|
[27]
Lesley Griffiths:
You mean the relevant authorities pooling
their budgets?
|
|
[28]
Jenny Rathbone:
Yes.
|
|
[29]
Lesley Griffiths:
Well, we did bring forward a different
approach to funding the relevant authorities because we
didn’t feel we understood enough of what the services were
being delivered. So, we had a different approach to the way it was
funded. I don’t know if you’ve picked that up in your
evidence, but I don’t think pooling budgets was an
issue.
|
|
[30]
Mr Rees: No, it was more the appetite amongst all managing
authorities to work in a consistent way. That was the concern of
the group and what the group then recommended was that there may be
more benefit in having a more strategic approach. So, Natural
Resources Wales has developed some priority improvement plans, and
there is a list of those which we, as a group, then wish to work
through, because there may be an opportunity of applying multiple
benefits across a range of sites, rather than doing it in a local
way. And that was the consideration of the group.
|
|
[31]
Lesley Griffiths:
I’d be happy to share the
correspondence with Members, Chair, if that would be
helpful.
|
|
[32]
Simon Thomas: Yes, thank you, that would be.
|
|
[33]
Lesley Griffiths:
I wrote to all the relevant
authorities.
|
|
[34]
Simon Thomas: So that’s—[Inaudible.]—the
relevant authorities, yes?
|
|
[35]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes, I wrote to them in May, just
reminding them of what their responsibilities were.
|
|
[36]
Simon Thomas: Okay.
|
|
[37]
Jenny Rathbone: Okay. Well, that’s very helpful, because,
obviously, we have a challenging situation at the moment with
limited resources, and, after 2018, we’re going to be
responsible for even larger areas of our seas. So, are you able to
just tell us what staff resource your marine and fisheries division
has to cover obviously a very large area of coastline?
|
|
[38]
Lesley Griffiths:
Again, we’ve all had reductions in
our officials, but the marine and fisheries division, I think, have
got 58 staff in it. I think that’s, obviously, enough to do
everything we want to do. However, if I could get more, obviously I
will. You have to understand that my portfolio is probably the most
affected portfolio in relation to Brexit. So, certainly, I have put
in a plea for more officials, because, again, we don’t know
what legislation will be needed, for instance. And this obviously
is an area that is, again, devolved to us, so whilst—. You
can always do with more staff, obviously.
|
|
[39]
Jenny Rathbone:
One specific piece of evidence that was
of concern was, in terms of regulation enforcement, you’ve
got to have a presence to ensure that people aren’t doing
what they’re not supposed to be doing. Mr Bullimore told us
that the south Wales fisheries patrol vessel had dropped from a
minimum of 100 days a year to 32 days in 2013 and 2014, and just 17
days in 2015, which I presume is the last available statistic. So,
that does make it difficult to see how we are effectively
controlling what goes on in our waters, otherwise pirates come in
and steal our fisheries.
|
|
[40]
Lesley Griffiths:
Well, two things around enforcement: I
think 2015 is the last year, and I thought we were third behind the
navy and the Southern Inshore
Fisheries and Conservation Authority.
|
|
10:45
|
|
[41]
Mr Fraser: That’s correct.
|
|
[42]
Lesley Griffiths: So, we were third. So, I thought we
were—
|
|
[43]
Mr Fraser: So, in terms of overall figures for 2015, in
terms of Welsh Government fisheries patrol vessels days at sea, the
Welsh Government was only third to the Royal Navy, and their two
river-class vessels that patrol UK waters, and the Southern IFCA in
England. For 2015, that’s 89 days at sea for 2015
overall.
|
|
[44]
Jenny Rathbone: Okay.
|
|
[45]
Lesley Griffiths: And the other thing around
enforcement—
|
|
[46]
David Melding: What was the Welsh one in that? Was that 89,
or was it 89 across—?
|
|
[47]
Mr Fraser: Eighty-nine days at sea Welsh Government, the
Royal Navy 250, and the Southern IFCA 104.
|
|
[48]
Jenny Rathbone: So, after 2018, would you envisage more
input from the Royal Navy? Because, obviously, we’re going to
be taking on responsibility for a larger area. We can’t do
that with two boats.
|
|
[49]
Lesley Griffiths: No. One of the reasons I’m buying
more boats is, obviously, technology has improved. I know you
visited one of the enforcement vessels—
|
|
[50]
Simon Thomas: We did, yes.
|
|
[51]
Lesley Griffiths: —after my telling you to go along.
You will have seen it was starting to reach the end of its working
life, I think is a nice way of putting it. So, it was really
important that we put funding into some new vessels, which
we’re doing. We’re having the first one in the
autumn—£6 million. Those conversations are taking place
now in relation to working with the Royal Navy. So, if your
question is, ‘Would we envisage more?’,
‘yes’, I suppose is the short answer.
|
|
[52]
Jenny Rathbone: Okay. Well, that’s helpful. In terms
of how you see us bringing together this very complex area, the
latest buzzword seems to be ‘ecologically-coherent
networks’, so that we are respecting the way in which the
birds, and the habitat, and the fisheries all combine together. How
do you see the Welsh national marine plan delivering that level of
coherence?
|
|
[53]
Lesley Griffiths: Obviously, we didn’t have a national
marine plan when I came into portfolio, and I think—because
we are going to see increased activity in our seas, and when we do
get the extra powers next year, I just thought it was really
important to have that marine plan. You’ll be aware—I
think I said it in this committee first—that we were hoping,
I’d hoped, to be in a position to go out to consultation
around now. Certainly, the drafting has gone very well, the team
have worked really hard, but we have got some difficulties with the
UK Government in as much as they’ve not yet responded to
Hendry, and that has to be part of the plan before we go out to
consultation. When I wrote to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I
think March or April, I got a response saying that the Hendry
review—their response—had been delayed, and they needed
a period of time to look at it and I’d get a letter in due
course. Well, to me, ‘in due course’ means nothing; I
would never put ‘in due course’ to somebody, because
what does it mean? So, I’ve now written back, after the
general election—because, obviously, that general election
also caused a bit of a hiatus—to ask when we can expect to
receive a response. So, I’m awaiting that. It only went, I
think, yesterday. So, I am awaiting a response, because I
don’t feel I can go out to consultation until we’ve got
that information in as well, because it’s really important
that that plan—. To me, it’s like planning permission
on land, isn’t it? We need that plan to be there with the
technologies in it. And, obviously, the tidal lagoon is an
important part of it.
|
|
[54]
Simon Thomas: Just on that, you did tell Plenary—I
recall you saying at the time—that you wanted Hendry and
tidal lagoons to be part of your marine plan. I don’t know
what’s happening on that, regardless of the concern of the
committee, of course, around tidal lagoons as well, but, in effect,
the UK Government is setting your timetable for consulting on the
other aspects. Will there come a time when you think, with the new
powers coming next year anyway, that you must move on this?
|
|
[55]
Lesley Griffiths: Yes, absolutely. I wouldn’t want to
delay it. When I say ‘summer’—we don’t
really have seasons now; I suppose you can get away with it a
little bit more. But, no, seriously, I would want to go, certainly,
by September or October at the latest.
|
|
[56]
Simon Thomas: Yes, because otherwise you won’t be in a
position to have anything for the new powers coming in and the
other—
|
|
[57]
Lesley Griffiths: No. And we have to have it; you’re
absolutely right. As I say, the drafting has gone really well; the
team has worked really hard. So, there will come a point, and that
was the reasoning for writing yesterday, actually, to try and get
something in writing from—I’m trying to think who I
wrote to—Greg Clark, to try and get something firm. Because,
as you say, there will come a time when we won’t be able to
wait any longer.
|
|
[58]
Jenny Rathbone: Okay. You mentioned increased activity. Is
that as a result of us—. I mean, what sort of activity?
|
|
[59]
Lesley Griffiths: The increased activity—well, in
relation to new technologies, like tidal lagoon, for instance. So,
there will be increased activity in that respect.
|
|
[60]
Jenny Rathbone: Fine. Okay. Thank you.
|
|
[61]
Simon Thomas: Okay. Huw, did you want to come in on
this?
|
|
[62]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Just briefly, following up on
Jenny—the increased activity, absolutely, we’re going
to see it. We know already, regardless of what’s happening in
any post June 23 referendum result and so on, that we still have
specific responsibilities out there. Can you give us some idea what
resource within your central division is put to marine
conservation, as opposed to fisheries enforcement? Is there
something you can share with us on—
|
|
[63]
Lesley Griffiths: From within my department? My
officials?
|
|
[64]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes. Within Welsh Government, but also
within your marine planning division directorate as well.
|
|
[65]
Lesley Griffiths: Just to conservation? Probably not. No, I
wouldn’t be able to split it down like that, because
there’s too many—. You work on too many different
aspects, really.
|
|
[66]
Mr Rees: Yes. You went to see the vessels, and you saw some
of the fishery officers there. They also enforce marine licensing,
which is about maintaining an effective environment. So, it’s
very difficult. We’re all engaged in it in some way or
other.
|
|
[67]
Huw Irranca-Davies: So, within marine and fisheries
division, everybody’s engaged in marine conservation in one
way or the other—that would be your argument.
|
|
[68]
Lesley Griffiths: Probably.
|
|
[69]
Huw Irranca-Davies: There is no split of
responsibilities.
|
|
[70]
Mr Rees: No.
|
|
[71]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Do you have divisions within the
division? Sorry, I should declare something of a tangential
interest as well to committee. One of my family members began
working on Monday for Natural Resources Wales on a 15-month
contract. But that’s not why I’m asking. I’m
asking because of this interesting facet of whether you see
fisheries enforcement and marine wrapped up together and
there’s no discernible difference within your central
organisation, or there are people working on specific areas to do
with marine conservation. It’d be helpful for committee to
understand.
|
|
[72]
Lesley Griffiths: I would say that most of you do marine
conservation—
|
|
[73]
Mr Rees: We do, yes.
|
|
[74]
Lesley Griffiths: —as part of your day job.
|
|
[75]
Mr Rees: It’s all about sustainable management of
natural resources.
|
|
[76]
Lesley Griffiths: I wouldn’t be able to split it.
|
|
[77]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Interesting. Interesting. Okay.
|
|
[78]
Simon Thomas: Sian Gwenllian.
|
|
[79]
Sian Gwenllian: Just a really basic question that maybe a
member of the public would be asking at this point. We’re
looking as if we’re having more and more designations around
Wales at the same time as we’re trying to develop the tidal
lagoons and windfarms up in north Wales, et cetera. What is your
vision in that respect? I think we need to just establish what the
strategic approach is at the really top level—conservation
versus developing—in the sea?
|
|
[80]
Lesley Griffiths: I’d go back to what I was
saying—it’s about a balance. So, I probably get as much
correspondence from the environmental side as fishermen, for
instance. So, it’s really about making sure you have that
balance, and the strategic vision would be to have a sustainable,
healthy sea. That, to me, would be—. And going back to the
question—
|
|
[81]
Simon Thomas: But isn’t that what the marine
plan—[Inaudible.]? Your marine plan’s got to
have that strategic vision, doesn’t it?
|
|
[82]
Lesley Griffiths: Absolutely. And to go back to what Simon
was asking—
|
|
[83]
Sian Gwenllian: I’m not sure if we’ve actually
got that at the moment. We’re talking below, the levels below
all of that. And I think, from the public’s point of view,
they need to see what is going on now with our sea.
|
|
[84]
Lesley Griffiths: And that’s the reason for wanting
that national marine plan. I wanted it quite quickly, but, like a
lot of things, it takes time.
|
|
[85]
Simon Thomas: Vikki Howells, please.
|
|
[86]
Vikki Howells: Diolch. The 2015 marine evidence report for
Wales pointed to deficiencies in MPA-related evidence, and
that’s certainly something that many of our witnesses have
come back to when we’ve been taking evidence here over the
last few months. Could you advise us what work is being done within
Welsh Government to address those deficiencies?
|
|
[87]
Lesley Griffiths: We do a great deal of monitoring, et
cetera. If I needed specific science, evidence, we would commission
it. So, I’m not quite sure about the criticism of
deficiencies. So, for instance, the Bangor University evidence that
was done into scallop dredging—. So, when I came to make a
decision—. I mean, I hadn’t started that evidence, it
was started before I came into portfolio, but that’s the type
of thing that we would do to fill gaps, if we felt there was a gap
or a deficiency.
|
|
[88]
Vikki Howells: I think one of the things that some of our
witnesses were talking about was perhaps a lack of sharing of
evidence as well. I don’t know whether you’d agree with
that, or think that work could be done maybe to improve that.
|
|
[89]
Lesley Griffiths:
Well, again, it’s not just about
the work that we would commission. We work very closely with NRW
and with the JNCC. So, we do share the evidence, or certainly
they’ve shared it with us and I’m sure if asked, we
would share ours with them. But it’s not about working in
isolation; it’s about working in partnership. For instance,
we’ve worked with NRW and the JNCC looking at a consistent UK
marine biodiversity monitoring plan. So, we do share
information.
|
|
[90]
Vikki Howells: Okay, thank you. You mentioned there about the
scallop dredging in Cardigan bay. I wonder whether you could
furnish us with a little bit more information about that,
particularly around how the reopening of that area fits with the
principles of the well-being of future generations Act.
|
|
[91]
Lesley Griffiths:
I think it’s fully in line with the
well-being of future generations Act, because it’s about the
way we work, it’s about engaging with stakeholders and
it’s about the benefit to Wales. And again, I go back to: you
have to balance the social, the economic and the environmental
sides of it all.
|
|
[92]
Again, it’s about supporting our
coastal communities in Wales. I know it was a decision where you
weren’t going to please everybody. I had a huge amount of
correspondence. I think, within the fisheries section, this was
probably the biggest postbag I had. Even Assembly Members—and
I’m not looking at anybody—had very different views,
but I took the decision, as I always try to, on a scientific and
evidence base. I had long conversations with the scientists from
Bangor and I felt that that was the right decision. However,
we’ve got to be very careful how we monitor it. We’re
not going to let a huge, increased number of vessels in, and we
will be monitoring it very, very carefully.
|
|
[93]
Simon Thomas: Just on that, because, in effect, that’s being
worked up now by a stakeholder group, isn’t it, of how that
will happen—the regulation, the monitoring and all that. How
could we, as a committee, be informed about how that group is also
looking at the principles that Vikki Howells asked you about? Would
we be able to see minutes and conclusions of the group and so
forth? Is that something that we—
|
|
[94]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes. We’ve got the scallop task and
finish group and I’d be very happy to share—.
It’s really important that we work in a transparent way and
I’d be very happy to share that with the
committee.
|
|
[95]
Simon Thomas: And when do you expect them to come to a conclusion
about how this scallop fishery will be reopened?
|
|
[96]
Lesley Griffiths:
Presumably by the autumn—sorry,
I’m looking at the wrong person. By the autumn?
|
|
[97]
Mr Fraser: We’ll be expecting, sometime later this summer,
output from the group. I think the key thing is that we’ve
encouraged cross-sector input into that group and that’s very
important. So, it largely comes down to the group in terms of their
consideration of the right technical measures that might be
appropriate in these circumstances, to come forward so that we can
consider those. And then we’ll need to think about bringing
forward a statutory instrument, which, obviously, would be
scrutinised here.
|
|
[98]
Simon Thomas: Yes, but if you could furnish the committee with the
group’s deliberations in advance of that, because that would,
in turn, inform the Assembly when the statutory instrument comes
before—
|
|
[99]
Lesley Griffiths:
I’m sure that’s not going to
be restricted, so I’ll be very happy to do that.
|
|
[100]
Simon Thomas: Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Can we turn to David Melding,
please?
|
|
[101]
David Melding: Thank you, Chair. I’d just like to ask a very
general question about resources. It’s simply this, really:
do you think that NRW has enough resources to meet its MPA
duties?
|
|
[102]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes, I do, because obviously, it’s
part of their statutory responsibility. I think the budget for NRW
is around £63 million and obviously, it’s their
statutory responsibilities that they need to fulfil
first.
|
|
[103]
David Melding: We have heard from a number of quite authoritative
witnesses that the key problem is that they don’t, and in
particular, that site condition reporting is haphazard and is not
as coherent and comprehensive as it needs to be. NRW have said
themselves that this area has been a big challenge and a big
difficulty. Is that the usual sort of special pleading that
Ministers have to put up with or are we in a more definite
situation here where we all have to ask ourselves whether there is
enough resource going? And, the implication of that, obviously, is
that it’s got to be moved from somewhere else,
potentially.
|
|
[104]
Lesley Griffiths: Yes. I
hope it would be the former. I’m meeting with NRW today,
actually. I meet with them monthly and I’d be very happy to
specifically ask that question. But, as you can imagine, it is a
plea quite often. And don’t get me wrong, I know that
we—. I’m not going to go into the politics around the
finances. We all know it’s a very difficult time. I think I
actually increased their budget a little bit this year, but it
might have been on the capital side, not on the revenue side. But I
think, perhaps, that’s a bit of a plea.
|
|
11:00
|
|
[105] David
Melding: Because, you know, I think—I’d expect you
to say, ‘Well, we live in constrained times,
financially.’ As a Minister, I don’t suppose you get
presented with terribly easy choices. But, in addition to
that—and that pressure, obviously, is across the public
sector—a lot of people have said to us that the problem with
MPAs is that designating them doesn’t mean you deliver them,
and that there’s historically been under-resourcing in this
area, and that’s part of the challenge. That does lead one to
conclude, I would say, possibly, that we do need to ask that
question of whether we’re just giving them enough.
|
|
[106] Lesley
Griffiths: But I go back to what I was saying: it is their
statutory responsibility, and they have some non-statutory
responsibilities. I would expect them to fulfil their statutory
responsibilities first. But, as I say, I am very happy to ask that
specific question later today, and I’ll let you know the
response. You’ve taken evidence, obviously, from NRW.
I’ve seen the written evidence that you’ve had. As I
say, I will take that up with them, but—
|
|
[107] Simon
Thomas: I think it was in the written evidence—
|
|
[108] Lesley
Griffiths: It was in the written evidence, yes; I read it.
|
|
[109] David
Melding: To develop this point about the relevant authority
groups, which I’ll now refer to by the acronym RAGs, we
visited one in Pembrokeshire, and that was the same day, I think,
that we went on to the enforcement vessel and it was very
interesting. But I think a lot of us around this table, over the
years, have been pleading for people to work together—joint
working, collaboration and all the rest of it. We were sat around a
table, and there was an obvious example of this working. The key
was there was a designated site officer, and that person—she
was able to get all the key players together. When you work
effectively together, you don’t add effort, you multiply it;
that’s the wonder, really, of multi-agency working—you
get a multiplication effect. But NRW has withdrawn the funding from
RAG officers, and that does seem to be a really curious way to
respond to best practice in the field.
|
|
[110] Lesley
Griffiths: I know NRW did change the way they gave out funding.
I referred to it in an earlier answer. So, they used to give core
funding and then they adjusted it to give it on project-based
activity. Now, I know some of the RAGs didn’t adjust their
bids and didn’t get the funding, so we’ll have to see
if that works in a better way, because I think it is really
important that we do know what they’re delivering, and I
don’t think we did when it was just given for core funding.
Is that core funding spent on offices, for instance, when they
could, perhaps, use an office in a local authority? If you went to
Pembroke, they probably were in the local authority
offices—
|
|
[111] David
Melding: They were.
|
|
[112] Lesley
Griffiths: So, I think that needs to be looked at.
|
|
[113] David
Melding: That’s all about monitoring and evaluation,
isn’t it, when the core decision is whether you fund these
posts, frankly, and that’s a strategic matter. Has NRW
surprised you by making the strategic decision not to fund
them?
|
|
[114] Lesley
Griffiths: Well, I go back: it was their decision to target
resources towards project-based activity because they felt they
weren’t getting the information that they needed or that the
services were being delivered because they were given it in core
funding. So, again, we’ll have to look at it and continue to
monitor it. I don’t know if you want to add anything.
|
|
[115] Mr Rees:
I think that was part of the reason why you wrote to them,
Minister; you wrote to all the relevant authorities—because
Welsh Government’s a competent authority and local
authorities and ports are relevant authorities. And the
point’s just been made here that if they work together, they
can actually have one officer who covers a whole range of things.
They do that very successfully. That’s why I think it’s
important that they’re aware of their roles and
responsibilities, and the Minister’s made that clear to
them.
|
|
[116] David
Melding: To take you on to the work the MPA steering group has
done, we understand—we’ve touched upon this, but
I’ll try to cover areas that we’ve not discussed. We
are told they indicated a firm preference for seven management
areas, each with a site officer, and that costing is roughly
£50,000 per officer, so in the order of £350,000. That
doesn’t seem to me a vast amount to really get all the
joined-upness and the delivery end of what we’re trying to do
here if not completely sorted, then well on the way to that.
It’s curious that your response has been—. So,
we’ve had very clear evidence that that was emphatically the
view. Then we get from the evidence from Welsh Government that,
‘Oh, it’s much more wishy-washy than that’. They
indicated a vague hope that this could happen, but of course they
realised that resources were such that it was—I think in your
evidence you said, and I quote—
|
|
[117] ‘too
challenging for the management authorities concerned’.
|
|
[118] Now, you
know—it’s Sir Humphrey triumphant there in that
language, I think. I have to tell you: frankly, that is not what we
have heard. We have heard that they absolutely told you that what
you needed to do was to fund seven management areas. Are we
misinformed? Was there a tin ear in terms of the Welsh Government
listening to what the MPA steering group said?
|
|
[119] Mr Rees:
The Welsh Government is one of the management authorities,
alongside all of the others. What we did as a group was we
identified an optimum approach, which was the seven areas. We broke
the costs down into a cost per management authority and when that
was presented to the group, the group’s view was that that
was not achievable. So we changed tack and went for a more
strategic approach to keep the group together and to look at ways
in which we could do work across a range of sites to improve those
sites.
|
|
[120]
Simon Thomas: So, just for clarity, are you saying that Welsh
Government was prepared to put its bit of money in and it was the
other authorities that weren’t?
|
|
[121]
Mr Rees: We listed out for all of the relevant authorities
that would have been involved what the costs were likely to be, and
the members of the group, who represented a number of those
relevant authorities, felt that the resources wouldn’t be
there to cover it.
|
|
[122]
Lesley Griffiths:
So, that was the advice that I
received.
|
|
[123] David Melding: Well, I think we need to
return to this to see if there was a firmer view from the MPA.
|
|
[124]
Simon Thomas: They didn’t simply ask you to fund
it.
|
|
[125]
Lesley Griffiths:
I wasn’t asked—
|
|
[126]
Mr Rees: There’s always a request for Welsh Government
to fund a range of things. At the end of the day, in that group, we
are all jointly responsible for the management of MPAs.
|
|
[127]
David Melding: And in that joint responsibility, do all the players
that need to make a contribution—or at least so many that it
overwhelmingly secures the objective—do they all have to
agree, or is it on majority decision? I mean, how does it operate?
Presumably some of them were quite happy to sign a modest
cheque.
|
|
[128]
Mr Rees: No, very few members of the group were content to
recommend that to all of the local authorities, port authorities et
cetera around Wales as an approach, because they felt the resources
wouldn’t be there to pick it up.
|
|
[129]
David Melding: Okay. Well, that’s a clear response and we can
pursue and seek to verify that.
|
|
[130]
Simon Thomas: Just on this, Huw Irranca-Davies.
|
|
[131]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Yes, very briefly, and staying with
David’s line of questioning. It sounds like a philosophical
question, but it’s actually a political and policy question:
anticipating that the demands on both conservation and fisheries
and the socioeconomic benefits that you want to deliver are going
to grow and grow and grow, accepting that what you say is
absolutely evidence out there in the field, which is that it needs
to be driven by partnerships, do you foresee a point at which
you’re going to have to say—you as a Cabinet Secretary,
and others—‘Frankly, everyone, you’re going to
need to dip in to contribute to this in a more substantial way; to
do the fisheries, the conservation, the dredging, the recreation,
the local and regional economic benefits that accrue from this,
we’re going to need to get serious about
it’?
|
|
[132]
Lesley Griffiths:
‘Yes’ is the short
answer.
|
|
[133]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Because we’re dancing around
it.
|
|
[134]
Lesley Griffiths:
So, the current financial position meant
that it didn’t happen, for the reasons that Graham’s
just outlined. But as we go forward, as we get more powers next
year, as we get the national marine plan in place, you’re
absolutely right; we’re going to have to look at it, and it
will be a political choice. I put significant extra funding into
this part of the portfolio’s budget this year. Mainly it was
because I recognised straightaway that we needed new vessels, for
instance. I think that decision that the previous
Minister—I’m not criticising Carl at all, but he had
made the decision not to replace. But it comes to a point—and
you will have seen that—where it’s clearly nearing the
end of its working life, so you have to make those
decisions. So, £6 million there could have perhaps gone into
something else, but next year we’ll have to look at it.
|
|
[135]
Simon Thomas: Just for the record, because there was an exchange
there around the relevant authority, Pembrokeshire, which we
visited, my understanding is that’s actually hosted by the
port authority, not by the local authority.
|
|
[136]
David Melding: Oh, yes. They were in someone else’s building,
weren’t they? They didn’t have a
magnificent—[Inaudible.]
|
|
[137]
Simon Thomas: They were using all the resources that they could
find.
|
|
[138]
Lesley Griffiths:
Which is good.
|
|
[139]
Simon
Thomas: A gaf i droi at Sian Gwenllian? Diolch yn fawr.
|
Simon Thomas: I’ll turn to Sian Gwenllian now. Thank
you.
|
|
[140]
Sian
Gwenllian: Ychydig o gwestiynau ynglŷn ag ymgysylltu efo
rhanddeiliaid, sydd yn hollbwysig yn y maes yma fel ym mhob maes,
wrth gwrs. A ydych chi yn teimlo bod yr ymgysylltu yn effeithiol,
ac ydy’r model ymgysylltu sy’n cael ei ddefnyddio yn
arwain at ddiwylliant o gyfathrebu effeithiol?
|
Sian Gwenllian: Just a few questions about engaging with
stakeholders, which is vital in this area as it is in every area,
of course. Do you feel that the engagement is effective, and does
the model of engagement that’s being used lead to a culture
of effective communication?
|
|
[141]
Lesley Griffiths:
I think we’ve got some very good
stakeholders within the fishing industry in Wales, and certainly
you’ll be aware—. I’ve spoken to you at length
about the stakeholder group that we’ve brought together
following the decision to leave the EU. Obviously, the fisheries
stakeholder members were very keen to come forward and join that
group. Is it effective? I suppose that then relies on those people
who attend the stakeholder groups going back and disseminating the
information to their network. And is that good enough? I would say
‘perhaps no’; there needs to be a bit more improvement
in the communications because sometimes I’ll get
correspondence and I’ll think, ‘Well, you should know
that from your stakeholder group involvement.’ So, I think
that is an area that could perhaps be improved, and a bit more
openness and transparency.
|
|
[142]
Sian Gwenllian: Rwy’n falch eich bod
chi’n cydnabod hynny. Mae yna un mater penodol o gwmpas
grŵp llywio yr ardaloedd morol gwarchodedig, oherwydd nid
yw’r papurau yn cael eu cyhoeddi ar wefan y Llywodraeth. Mewn
llythyr atom ni yn ddiweddar, rydych chi wedi cadarnhau nad ydyn
nhw yn cael eu cyhoeddi. Onid yn yr ysbryd yma yr ydych yn dymuno
ei gael o fwy o dryloywder y byddai hi yn fendithiol i’r
rhain gael eu cyhoeddi? Er enghraifft, y drafodaeth rydym newydd ei
chael rŵan ynglŷn â’r saith ardal, a bod yna
wahaniaeth barn o fewn y grŵp, a’r drafodaeth am yr
arian, pe bai’r cofnodion yna ar y wefan i ni gyd eu gweld,
byddai’n llawer fwy tryloyw ac mi fedrem ni weld beth oedd yn
mynd ymlaen, a beth oedd y tensiynau, ac yn y blaen.
|
Sian Gwenllian: I’m pleased that you acknowledge that. There is
one specific area around the steering group in terms of the MPAs,
because the papers aren’t published on the Government’s
website. In a letter to us recently, you have confirmed that they
are not published. In the spirit that you want to get in terms of
more transparency, wouldn’t it be good for these to be
published? For example, the discussion we’ve just had now in
terms of the seven areas, and that there is a difference of opinion
within the group, and the discussion around the funding, if the
minutes were there on the website for us all to see, it would be
much more transparent and we could see what was going on, and what
the tensions were, and so forth.
|
|
[143]
Lesley Griffiths:
Absolutely, I agree with you, and when I
wrote to you I looked into if there were any reasons why they
couldn’t be published. I personally can’t see any
reason for them to be restricted, so I think it’s perfectly
sensible for you to be able to have that information, and for the
public to be able to have that information. I couldn’t see
any reasons why it couldn’t happen.
|
|
[144]
Mr Rees: It’s just that it’s a group of managing
authorities coming together to have a discussion and have a
meeting. There is a relevant authority officer who comes into the
group and advises the group on the work of relevant authority
groups, and feeds that back as well and represents their views in
the group. But there isn’t any reason why we couldn’t
publish them.
|
|
[145]
Sian Gwenllian:
Okay. I think that would be
useful.
|
|
[146]
Symud ymlaen
wedyn at yr ymgysylltu efo’r cyhoedd yn gyffredinol. Mi wnes
i gyffwrdd ar hynny reit ar y cychwyn. Nid wyf yn meddwl bod pobl
yn deall beth yw pwrpas y parthau gwahanol yma. Nid yw pobl yn
deall y gwahanol ddyletswyddau sydd gan wahanol barthau, ac nid
ydynt yn sicr yn deall y cysylltiad rhwng cadwraeth a datblygu.
Felly, beth fedrwch chi wneud i wella hynny? A ydych chi’n
derbyn hynny i ddechrau—bod yna le i wella o ran sut y
mae’r cyhoedd yn cael eu haddysgu am bwrpas yr
ardaloedd?
|
Moving on, then, to engaging with the public more
generally. I touched on that at the outset. I don’t think
that people understand the purpose of these different zones. People
don’t understand the different duties that different zones
have, and they certainly don’t understand the link between
conservation and development. Therefore, what can you do to improve
that situation? Do you accept that, to begin with—that there
is room to improve how the public is educated about the purpose of
these areas?
|
|
[147]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes, of course; I think there is always
more you can do, isn’t there? And if somebody is interested
in it, then they’ll probably go and find that information,
but until that time then perhaps they wouldn’t. One of the
opportunities that I do think we have is that next year is the Year
of the Sea. So, I know officials are already working across the
department with economy and infrastructure officials to see what
more we can do there to show that it is a really positive
thing, and to make people more aware of the benefits, if you like,
of it or of them.
|
|
11:15
|
|
[148]
Sian
Gwenllian: Ac rydw i’n cymryd mai cyhoeddi y cynllun morwrol pan
ddaw hwnnw—ac mae gwir angen hwnnw ar frys, buaswn i’n
dweud—mi fydd hwnnw’n cynnig cyfleon hefyd i gael y
drafodaeth yma i egluro’r strategaeth a’r weledigaeth
sydd gennych chi ynglŷn â chadwraeth a datblygu yn mynd
law yn llaw.
|
Sian Gwenllian:
And I take it that publishing the marine
plan when it comes—and we really do need that urgently, I
would say—that that will offer opportunities as well to have
this discussion and to explain the strategy and vision that you
have for conservation and development hand in hand.
|
|
[149]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes, absolutely. When we go out to
consultation, you always find—I think, in this department
particularly—that the number of consultation responses is
very high. I’ve had a few consultations recently, more on the
agricultural side, and we’ve had a significant response to
those consultations. Hopefully, when we do go out to
consultation—and I do share your view that we need to do it
as soon as possible—we’ll get a significant number of
responses back. That will generate, if we get the communications
right—I go back to what I was saying, that we need to make
sure that the comms side of things is right. I think, when we go
out to consultation, that will raise the issue in the minds of the
public.
|
|
[150]
Sian
Gwenllian: Fel efo pob ymgynghoriad, rydych chi’n mynd i gael lot
o’r grwpiau diddordeb yn cymryd rhan. Nid ydy hynny o
angenrheidrwydd yn golygu bod y cyhoedd yn cymryd rhan yn yr
ymgynghoriad.
|
Sian Gwenllian:
As with every consultation, you’re
going to have lots of interest groups taking part. That does not
necessarily mean that the public is going to take part in the
consultation.
|
|
[151]
Lesley Griffiths:
No, but you can only have it out there
and encourage people, and I think as elected representatives we all
have a role in making sure our constituents are aware of it. Quite
often with these consultations—. I’m very keen on 12
weeks because you get criticised if you don’t do it for 12
weeks, particularly if a part of it would be over the summer. You
need to make sure that you give everybody the opportunity to do it,
and most people do it at the end. Certainly on the TB eradication
we had very, very few responses and then, suddenly, you get this
influx, so, I do hope that—. Obviously you’ll get your
interested groups, of course you will, and you’ll get two
sides of the argument, and probably three and four sides of the
argument as well, but I think it would be great if we could reach
out to the public, as you say, the ordinary member of the public
who perhaps hasn’t got a vested interest or is just
interested in marine life. So, hopefully, if we get the comms
right, we’ll make sure that members of the public are aware
of it. Because it’s a really—I think it’s
fantastic. You know, to have that first national marine plan for
Wales is really exciting.
|
|
[152]
Simon
Thomas: Ocê, diolch yn fawr. Jayne Bryant.
|
Simon
Thomas: Okay, thank you. Jayne Bryant.
|
|
[153]
Jayne Bryant: With Brexit on the horizon and the significant
implications that will bring, do you intend to continue to seek to
achieve or maintain the good environmental status by 2020, which is
required, as you know, by the EU marine strategy framework
directive?
|
|
[154]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes, we have agreed in principle to
continue our work. And you will have heard me say in other parts of
the portfolio that we don’t expect to see any drop in
environmental standards, and the same goes for this part of the
portfolio as well.
|
|
[155]
Jayne Bryant: That’s good to hear, and I’m sure lots of
people are very glad that you’ve put that on record again
today. Many witnesses that we had were concerned around the
uncertainty over the next few years. What work has your department
done to assess the likely implications and the impact of leaving
the EU on Welsh MPAs?
|
|
[156]
Lesley Griffiths:
Well, that work is already under way and
we’re harmonising designation and management as part of the
designation process. It’s really important that we have those
conversations and, again, I go back to the ministerial stakeholder
group. So, within that stakeholder group, again, it was really
important that people didn’t work in silos, and marine and
fisheries are part of that. I think we’ve got a stakeholder
group on 3 July, and at the last one we decided that we are going
to start working not in silos, but in our little areas, to come
together, so there is a designated one for marine and
fisheries.
|
|
[157]
Mr Rees: Yes, there’s coast and seas.
|
|
[158]
Lesley Griffiths:
Coast and seas, that’s right. So,
they’ll be reporting into the main stakeholder event on 3
July. But, again, this is an area that’s devolved to Wales;
there’ll be no grabbing back of powers by the UK Government.
I’m very firm on that.
|
|
[159]
Jayne Bryant: Brilliant, thank you.
|
|
[160]
Simon Thomas: Just on that point, considering that we have just
spent two months in an unnecessary general election, some of us
would say, which hasn’t allowed us to debate these issues.
You now have Mr Gove as your correspondent, Cabinet Secretary. Have
you already contacted him at all around these issues, and what are
you—? We’re looking at the marine protected areas
here, but I’m interested to
know because you said very clearly
there would be no roll-back on devolution in environment. What is
the process now that you’re taking forward about ensuring
that this happens? Because there is talk that there may not be the
great reform Bill, as pitched, or that alternative methods may come
forward, in a different parliament. Are you at all aware of how
this might happen as a process now?
|
|
[161]
Lesley Griffiths:
Right. So, colleagues will be aware that
we have monthly ministerial meetings around these
issues—we’ve got them in the diary. We go around the
four countries, and, next week, we were hosting, and I had an
e-mail on Monday morning to tell me that the meeting had been
pulled.
|
|
[162]
Simon Thomas: Right. From Whitehall, this is?
|
|
[163]
Lesley Griffiths:
From DEFRA. It had been pulled, along
with the July meeting, because it didn’t fit in with the
Minister’s, well, presumably the Cabinet Secretary and
Ministers’ diaries. I just think that’s a very
unfortunate way of dealing with it, particularly as I was the host
next week, and just to receive an e-mail telling me it was out. So,
officials have been speaking. Yesterday, we were hoping to try and
reinstate it. As of just coming into committee, I haven’t
heard anything. So, I’m in the process, when I go from here,
I will be writing to Mr Gove about that, because I think it’s
really important. Those monthly ministerial meetings were just a
good way of being able to thrash out all these issues. I was hoping
that senior officials—. The last one we had was in April and
I was hoping we would have the senior official one in May. Again,
that was pulled. Obviously, we didn’t have one in June,
because we were having one next week; that’s now been pulled.
You know, it’s very unfortunate. We’ve lost significant
time.
|
|
[164]
Simon Thomas: So, at the moment, you won’t have had one for
four months.
|
|
[165]
Lesley Griffiths:
We had one in April.
|
|
[166]
Simon Thomas: Yes, but if the June and July ones have gone, then
it’s—
|
|
[167]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes. We put dates in for June, July and
September. And the June and July, unfortunately, at the
moment—. But we’re hoping that we can get that
reinstated. But certainly it’s a great shame, because we were
making real headway in that and it was very good to be able to go
back to stakeholders and explain. And I think they put real
importance on the ministerial meetings. I have to say they worked
very well. We didn’t always agree, of course, but it was a
good forum for doing it.
|
|
[168]
Simon Thomas: But unless you meet as the four nations, then
you’re not going to be able to agree how this environmental
protection is preserved when we leave the European Union, and the
methods for doing that. You simply can’t agree it unless you
meet.
|
|
[169]
Lesley Griffiths:
No, absolutely. And, obviously,
we’ve got the situation in Northern Ireland at the moment. I
think the Permanent Secretary came to the last meeting that we had.
So, I just think it’s very unfortunate. I’m afraid
that’s the current position, but I am hoping—.
Obviously, we don’t know when the Queen’s Speech is
going to be; it could be that the Ministers from DEFRA felt that
they couldn’t come to Cardiff next week because they
didn’t know when the Queen’s Speech was. But, we really
need that. We just need another date, and we can all be flexible
and make sure that we get that date. Even if we all can’t get
together in a room, there’s technology that means we can
video.
|
|
[170]
Simon Thomas: If you get a date, are you prepared to just inform
the committee that you have a meeting, so we know that that’s
happening?
|
|
[171]
Lesley Griffiths:
Of course.
|
|
[172]
Simon Thomas: Okay. It’s your questions, anyway,
Huw.
|
|
[173]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Thank you, Chair. Your questions were
pertinent, because they do flow into the sort of dialogue that
I’m seeking to examine here in my questions, particularly
with senior officials. I can sort of understand that a new
Secretary of State in post may need a couple of weeks—to just
get landed with a portfolio, ‘Here it is, 30 areas.’
But, however, time is pressing, because of what I want to get on
to. Can I just clarify? Did you just tell the Chair that the senior
officials meeting will also not be able to take place?
|
|
[174]
Lesley Griffiths:
No, it didn’t. When we had our
ministerial meeting in April, the election had been called, I
think, the week before. Was the election called on the eighteenth?
I think it was the week after. I think it was on the eighteenth.
So, there should have been a ministerial meeting in May, but that
was obviously pulled because of the election. I had hoped that the
senior official meeting would be held in May, but it
wasn’t—instead of the ministerial meeting. But, the
senior officials still meet.
|
|
[175]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
The senior officials are still meeting.
That’s great; okay.
|
|
[176]
Lesley Griffiths:
Or talking, anyway.
|
|
[177]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
In that case, could I ask to drill down a
little bit on a couple of specific issues? Some of our marine
protected areas, particularly European marine sites, are transposed
already into English and Welsh law, like the special areas of
conservation and the special protection areas. There are others
that aren’t. What is your current thinking on how we protect
those other European marine sites that do not currently fall within
the law of England and Wales?
|
|
[178]
Lesley Griffiths:
As I say, it’s very early days,
really, but we are starting to have those discussions. Again, it
depends on the great repeal Bill, really, because we just
don’t know what’s going to be happening in relation to
that now.
|
|
[179]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
I understand that you can’t give us
your thinking on that, but have you got an idea when you might be
able to relay to the committee what is your thinking, going
forward, and what discussions you’ve had with the UK
Government on this as well, because it does, of course, tie into
the nature of the repeal Bill, and it does tie into some of the
wider tussle going on about where powers lie and so on, but
ultimately, these are existing European protected areas and they
are exposed if they are not transposed in one way or the other into
either Welsh law, made in Wales, or England and Wales law? Have you
got an idea—is that work that will be going through over the
summer, and you’ll be able to report back to the
committee—?
|
|
[180]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes, we’ll be happy to report back.
These are the things that we discuss at ministerial meetings. As I
was saying, it would be a great shame if we can’t keep them
going, because when we put the dates in the diary back in,
probably, February, we didn’t know there was going to be a
snap general election and we have unfortunately had that very long
hiatus. But, as I was saying, we really need to pick up as quickly
as possible because there are so—I mean, I’ve got 7,000
pieces of legislation and regulations in my portfolio, which are in
agriculture and marine and fisheries.
|
|
[181]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
In the absence of those meetings, because
I’m going to lead on to another question, drilling down into
some of the detail as well, do you or some of your officials have
some idea of the way that you would like it to go in making sure
that those European marine protected sites that are not currently
within law are protected within the Welsh waters? Have you got an
idea of what you will be pitching to Mr Gove or his
Ministers?
|
|
[182]
Lesley Griffiths:
Do you want to—?
|
|
[183]
Mr Rees: It’s all hinging on the great repeal Bill, but
our hope is that they would be saved as part of that process. So,
there will be no change in terms of the designation.
|
|
[184]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Right, okay—
|
|
[185]
Lesley Griffiths:
But then if they’re not, obviously
we’d have to create our own legislation.
|
|
[186]
Simon Thomas: If I can just say, Huw—before he was appointed,
Mr Gove said that he wanted to roll back on the habitats directive
and roll back on this environmental legislation. Have you had any
indication from the current Government that they are going to
either preserve, because the original intention was to transpose
everything across, or have you had any indication at all of a
change of tack—?
|
|
[187]
Lesley Griffiths:
When you say ‘the current
Government’, you mean literally—
|
|
[188]
Simon Thomas: I mean the one that is literally being appointed,
yes.
|
|
[189]
Lesley Griffiths:
No, because I haven’t had any
discussions with them.
|
|
[190]
Simon Thomas: I appreciate it’s not—. There we
are.
|
|
[191]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
But you’ve made clear
yourself—
|
|
[192]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes, to the previous
Government.
|
|
[193]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
—that as far as you’re
concerned, there will be no diminution of the standing of the
current protected statuses of these areas. Enforcement is another
issue; management of them is another issue.
|
|
[194]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes.
|
|
[195]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Right, okay. So, when you go into your
discussions at senior official level or between yourself and Mr
Gove and so on, you’ll be saying, ‘This is what we
should be having’.
|
|
[196]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes.
|
|
[197]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Okay, that’s great. The other thing
related to that, then, is the future reporting and accountability
mechanisms, which of course are currently under the article 17
reporting obligation under the EU habitats directive, but what are
your or your officials’ initial thoughts on that going
forward?
|
|
[198]
Lesley Griffiths:
Again, the great repeal Bill is where the
details will be, but we will obviously continue to have our
reporting duties to OSPAR. That will continue and I think
we’re due to have a report in relation to this next
year.
|
|
[199]
Mr Rees: Yes, next year.
|
|
[200]
Lesley Griffiths:
So, I’ll be able to give you some
more detail then.
|
|
[201]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
They are really helpful answers, in some
ways in the fact that you can’t be more elucidating with your
answers because of where we are, but I think it would be in the
committee’s benefit, Chair, that, as soon as those
discussions are under way, you helpfully clarify for us what the
parameters are and what’s been agreed and what’s been
discussed.
|
|
[202]
Just a broader question to ask in
finishing off, which is this aspect now that we’re all
talking about in terms of the challenges and the opportunities
arising from the decision to leave the EU in whatever shape that
withdrawal may be. Are you doing that scoping? What do you see at
the moment as Cabinet Secretary? Let’s start with the
opportunities: do you see opportunities here?
|
|
[203]
Lesley Griffiths:
I try. I do try to see opportunities. I
think it’s really important to recognise that, with any
challenges, there are always opportunities and that’s why we
did initiate that engagement process. I have to say that
we’ve done it in Wales in a way that hasn’t been done
in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They’re catching
us up now, but I think that the engagement that we undertook in
that stakeholder group and now within the workshops has enabled us
to start looking and scoping, you know, the opportunities. So,
that’s ongoing work. So, we’ve now started being much
more—. And this is what we wanted to do at the ministerial
meetings as well—we’d go and we’d talk, and
we’ve asked for papers to come on different areas. And I
honestly can’t remember from April what the next topic was
supposed to be, but, certainly, marine and fisheries will be an
area where—. You know, we just want the best possible
outcomes—
|
|
11:30
|
|
[204]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Absolutely.
|
|
[205]
Lesley Griffiths:
—for our coastal
communities.
|
|
[206]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
But do you have any idea, you and your
officials, or the scoping group at the moment, if you were to say
to them, ‘Well, tell us what the top one, two, three
opportunities are here potentially? What are you telling us now is
there in our sights if we can make it work?’
|
|
[207]
Mr Rees: There are clear opportunities, in terms of Wales
being a small country, of joining things up and making things much
easier for people to understand, easier for people to navigate
through if they were looking to do various things. So, those
opportunities exist, and the current legislation, you know, whilst
being very comprehensive, is designed for a much larger scale. So,
we have those opportunities moving forward, and to try and
integrate it better with the marine plan.
|
|
[208]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Right, okay. And beyond the challenges
that have been already rehearsed, are there any other challenges
that you would want to make the committee aware of? Whether
it’s in—[Interruption.] No, sorry; I won’t
lead you, no. Are there any other—? No. Could I lead you,
then? [Laughter.] Collaboration on data, research, sharing
of information, all of those things, but also the wider
international obligations that go beyond what we’ve been
talking about today—do we have any threats there?
|
|
[209]
Mr Rees: The biggest challenge will be funding, because a lot
of the European designations and, you know, in terms of fisheries
as well, there is a lot of funding that is provided to support a
lot of that activity.
|
|
[210]
Lesley Griffiths:
But it’s okay, because we were told
we’re not going to lose a penny, so it’s fine.
We’re going to hold them to that.
|
|
[211]
Mr Rees: So, in terms of international obligations, OSPAR,
we’re still without, then we assume that we will become a
coastal state as part of the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea post exit, and then anyone operating within our waters
will have to abide by our laws and we would probably end up with
some sort of negotiating arrangement with other coastal states in
terms of what we do.
|
|
[212]
Simon Thomas: We will have to conclude there.
|
|
[213]
Diolch yn fawr am y dystiolaeth, a
diolch i’r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet ac i Mr Fraser a Mr Rees am
ddod i mewn. Wrth gwrs, bydd yna drawsgrifiad ar gyfer cywirdeb yn
cael ei gylchredeg hefyd.
|
Thank you very
much for your evidence, and thank you to the Cabinet Secretary and
to Mr Fraser and Mr Rees for coming in. Of course, we will send you
a transcript to check the accuracy.
|
|
[214]
A gaf i awgrymu i’r Aelodau,
gan ein bod ni’n newid pwnc yn eithaf sylweddol, ein bod ni
jest yn cymryd pum munud, yn llythrennol—so, 22 funud i
hanner dydd—i ddod yn ôl a thrafod coedwigaeth?
Ocê. So, pum munud.
|
Can I suggest
to Members that, as we are changing subject significantly now, we
take literally a five-minute break, please—so, at 22 minutes
to midday—to come back and discuss our next topic: forestry?
Okay. So, five minutes.
|
|
Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 11:33 a 11:37.
The meeting adjourned between 11:33 and 11:37.
|
|
Ymchwiliad i Bolisi Coedwigaeth a
Choetiroedd yng Nghymru: Tystiolaeth Lafar gan Gynrychiolwyr y
Diwydiant
Inquiry into Forestry and Woodland Policy in Wales:
Oral Evidence from Industry Representatives
|
|
[215]
Simon Thomas: Welcome back to the Climate Change, Environment and
Rural Affairs Committee. We move on to our inquiry on woodland and
forestry policy in Wales and welcome our witnesses for this
morning. If, at the outset, I could just ask you to just state your
name and organisation or responsibilities for the record. Thank you
very much. We’ll start with Mr Edwards.
|
|
[216]
Mr Edwards: If I start, yes. My name is David Edwards and
I’m district manager for Tilhill Forestry for Wales. We
currently manage approximately 20,000 hectares of mostly commercial
forestry in Wales.
|
|
[217]
Mr Bishop: Martin Bishop, Confederation of Forest Industries,
the UK organisation representing the whole of the wood/forestry
supply chain—sawmills, processers, owners, right the way
through—and I’m the national manager.
|
|
[218]
Mr MacLeod: I’m Hamish MacLeod of BSW Timber. We have a
sawmill in Newbridge in Powys and we employ 150 people there.
I’m based in Scotland but I do cover the whole of the UK in
my role.
|
|
[219]
Simon Thomas: You’re all welcome and we have a series of
questions for you. It may well be that you have similar things to
say in reply to some of these questions, so, in order for us to
make progress, if somebody’s already said something, then
don’t feel obliged to have to repeat it, if I can put it that
way.
|
|
[220]
If I can start just generally with a
question for yourselves, operating in the commercial sector here in
Wales, what is your general outlook for the future of the
commercial forestry sector if we maintain the current planting and
restocking rates that are being predicted at the moment? Perhaps,
Martin Bishop, it might be good, please, to start with you on
that.
|
|
[221] Mr Bishop: Yes.
I think the short-term outlook is fairly positive. The markets are
good. There’s strong demand for all types of forestry
products. We could easily process and sell an enormous amount
more—that’s the simple answer. We know, longer term,
that increased demand is going to be there. There’s plenty of
organisations—the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
WWF, and those sorts of organisations—who predict the
long-term demand for timber and wood products is going to rise—double or treble. So, we
really do know that the outlook is positive for the sector. The
thing we must address, really, is the catastrophic decline in the
availability forecast. We can only make what we make if we have
a source to do it. What you make, what you cut from the
timber, is an academic question, if we haven’t got the timber
there to cut anything. So, we think there’s a very positive
outlooks for the sector.
|
|
[222] Simon
Thomas: So, the sector itself is geared up and viable, and
ready to take the input. Is there, from the Welsh
perspective—you take timber from all over the UK and import
as well, I imagine—a time in the future when you see a real
decline in the availability of commercial timber in Wales?
|
|
[223] Mr
MacLeod: Perhaps I can answer that question. I think we have
this vision that, when you invest in a sawmill, although the
payback might be something like seven to 10 years financially, you
expect really to be running it for 20 to 25 years. And so we see a
decline in the availability of raw material in about 15 years in
Wales. That’s really made us think twice about further
investments at Newbridge. We have six other mills in the UK where,
with the supply situation, although it does tail off, we have a
longer horizon to work with. So, we’re really concerned about
the time horizon in Newbridge. I guess what we’re trying to
do just now is just invest in operational improvements and do some
value added. But I think anything in terms of actually increasing
the capacity of the line is really out of the question now in
Wales.
|
|
[224]
Simon Thomas: I think that’s an important time just to ask,
with the overview across the UK, whether you see the different
examples of different policies elsewhere being more effective in
bringing forward commercial woodland, and, particularly, you
mentioned the tail-off is different in different parts of the UK.
Perhaps just to tell the committee a little more about how that
pans out in different parts of the UK, and, perhaps, whether there
is anyone who’s doing very well in ensuring that
there’s an ongoing supply.
|
|
[225] Mr
MacLeod: I think we see in Scotland, where we have four mills,
that the prospect of that tail-off, if you like, is more like 25
years, and it’s not quite so pronounced. Although the state
forestry—the forestry commission—is fairly steady,
private sector woodlands are coming to maturity over a longer
period of time. So, that will sort of cover the gaps. But, the
Scottish Government, like Wales, has had targets in place for
woodland creation, and in the last couple of years, they’ve
actually started to meet those targets. So, we’ve actually
got some progress there, and so some confidence, if you like, that
the tail-off will ultimately be met.
|
|
[226] Mr
Bishop: We’re in a time frame where we can do something
about it. The diagram that we put into our submissions gives us the
timescales. With improved tree breeding and things like that, now
we can actually start to look at getting some returns in as little
as 15 years sometimes. So, what we call the rotation, which is the
time from planting to the time of eventual full harvest, would
normally be 40 to 50 years, with some, particularly the improved
Sitkas, coming through in 30 years, with some sort of income before
that. So, we are in a positon where we can mitigate this.
It’s not a disaster that’s a complete write-off, but we
do have to act fairly quickly.
|
|
[227] Simon
Thomas: So, would it be fair to say that you’re sounding
a warning, from your perspective, about the availability of
commercial wood in Wales?
|
|
[228] Mr
Bishop: Yes, very much so.
|
|
[229] Mr
Edwards: To give you an example, I work for Tilhill.
We’re a GB-wide company, and my colleagues in Scotland talk
about planting, as a company, thousands of hectares per year. In
Wales, I’m talking about planting tens of hectares of new
forest per year.
|
|
[230] Mr
Bishop: I think the aspiration in Scotland is 15,000 hectares
per year. And they’re fairly confident they will achieve
that.
|
|
[231] Simon
Thomas: Jenny.
|
|
[232] Jenny Rathbone: Picking that up, Mr Edwards, why aren’t
you planting more, given that all the evidence is that we’re
going to need more?
|
|
[233] Mr
Edwards: I reckon that the biggest obstacle to new planting in
Wales is regulation. That’s the one thing that holds us back
more than anything else. The land is potentially available for
inward investors or farmers to plant. The problem we have is with
regulation and, more recently, the financial limits that have been
put on our grant funding for new planting as well. That’s
limited new planting.
|
|
[234]
Jenny Rathbone:
Sticking with regulation. Regulations
exist in Scotland too. What’s so different about Wales?
|
|
11:45
|
|
[235] Mr
Edwards: The regulations in Wales seem to be enforced in a more
rigorous way. There’s much more of a will in Scotland to
enable planting, whereas in Wales it’s much more about the
reasons not to plant. So, there isn’t that enabling culture,
if you like, to encourage planting. We have a woodland
opportunities map that you may well have heard of, but, again, that
doesn’t encourage planting in the areas where we want to be
able to plant. The ideal ground for establishing new commercial
forest is on the marginal agricultural ground, not the best
agricultural ground, not on the unplantable land. It’s that
middle ground that we’re looking to be able to plant.
|
|
[236] Jenny
Rathbone: So, do we need to change the regulations or change
the attitudes?
|
|
[237] Mr
Edwards: I think to change the attitude to regulation would be
a key start.
|
|
[238] Jenny
Rathbone: Well, if we have regulations, we need to enforce
them. Are you saying the regulations are—?
|
|
[239] Mr
Edwards: Well, there’s enforcing regulations and
there’s how the regulations are interpreted, as well. I think
that’s an issue for us. One of the ways I often think about
it is we talk about, ‘To make an omelette, you have to crack
some eggs’, and the problem is that we’re not able to
make those judgments about which eggs can be cracked to get that
outcome that we’re looking for in terms of more forest land
planted.
|
|
[240] Mr
Bishop: There’s a lot of, I would say, conflicting
regulation and legislation, but there’s a lot of different
legislation that you have to take account of, and many of them
overlap a little bit and make life extremely difficult. Most of
them—the habitats risk assessment, environmental protection
ones, EPA, the EIA ones—they all talk about, ‘You must
demonstrate you don’t have a significant impact’. And
that word is crucial, ‘significant’, because it
doesn’t mean any impact, because, whatever you do, if
you’re going to change land use, you’re going to have
some impact on something. But it’s who interprets the word
‘significant’, and it’s being interpreted as
having any impact. So, I think we have to make some choices,
really. That’s what we want. We want some direction on some
choices about what we actually want. There are going to be winners,
and there are going to be losers.
|
|
[241] Simon
Thomas: Just to say, we’ll have some more specific
questions on regulation coming up later. Jenny.
|
|
[242] Jenny
Rathbone: Clearly, we aren’t at the moment meeting our
own objectives in terms of our climate change strategy. How
realistic is it for us to replace imports, which is obviously the
vast majority of the source of wood in the UK? If we want to use
more wood, we’ve either got to import more or we’ve got
to plant more.
|
|
[243] Mr
Bishop: There’s already a market to go at with imports.
It’s an interesting—. Many different products are
imported and it could be timber products, it could be pulpwood
products, it could be right up to chairs and tables. But, even in
the sawn wood market, we still import a substantial amount. The UK
mills are competing admirably with imports on price. The European
organisation of sawmills has actually said that the UK’s a
very good place to base sawmills, and they say that the sawmill
capacity is world-class in the UK, that they are capable of
competing. What we need is the resource to be able to allow them to
compete. It is literally all about the resource. When we talk to
the processors, they could all double or treble capacity if they
had a resource there to do it. It’s all about the resource in
our opinion.
|
|
[244] Jenny
Rathbone: How much is this down to regulation, or is it just
the long-term UK disease of failing to invest for the long
term?
|
|
[245] Mr
MacLeod: I think the sawmilling industry has actually
invested—and in our own company invested over £100
million in the last six or seven years in different facilities. So,
the processing sector’s not afraid to invest in capacity and
to modernise. As Martin says, we have a world-class level of
technology within the sector in the UK, and we are able to compete
on a like-for-like basis with our products, whether that’s
into construction or whether it’s into pallets or fencing or
garden products and so on. We’re pretty innovative as well in
terms of developing, and, if you actually look at the scale of
growth of the industry from around about an 8 per cent market
penetration 30 years ago to, now, a 38 per cent market penetration,
it’s been an exceptionally successful sector. Whether it can
go much further, well, that’s really dependent, again, on the
resource of raw material coming from the woodlands.
|
|
[246] Mr
Bishop: I think the figure, just on Wales, is something in the
region of £45.5 million that has been invested in processing
capacity over the last eight years.
|
|
[247]
Jenny Rathbone:
Okay. But if we were to adopt the wood
first policy in constructing new homes, which you advocated in your
manifesto in 2016—Confor did—what impact would that
have in terms of prices? If we had that, we’d then increase
demand, and at the moment we don’t have the raw material. Or
we do at the moment, but we won’t have in the future—is
that the message?
|
|
[248]
Mr MacLeod: Ultimately, timber competes with steel, concrete,
brick, block and other building materials. So, if you look at the
entire house as it’s being constructed, whether it’s
out of timber or out of brick, traditionally, if you look at the
whole life cycle of that home, the timber cost is a very, very
small proportion of the total cost of actually running a home for
50 years. So, I think timber can actually be very competitive
against other materials. So, where there are wood encouragement
policies—and there have been in certain local authorities
throughout the UK—they’ve actually seen some real
growth in market penetration in that. In Wales, it’s about 30
per cent, I think, of homes that are timber framed, for example. In
Scotland, it’s 75 per cent. In England, it’s less than
20 per cent. So, there’s still quite a long way to go in
terms of market penetration for construction grade
timbers.
|
|
[249]
Jenny Rathbone:
So, what are the barriers to that? Is it
the need to change Government policy?
|
|
[250]
Mr MacLeod: There’s sort of a cultural barrier. I think
that’s the first thing. If you look at other European
countries, timber is always the first choice in terms of building,
whereas, in the UK, generally speaking, it’s, ‘Well,
we’ll use timber if there’s nothing else.’ But I
think, nowadays, we’ve actually got the opportunity to really
push it, particularly in carbon sequestration as well, because
you’re locking up the carbon within the timber within the
house, so it’s a very good use in terms of mitigation as
well.
|
|
[251]
Jenny Rathbone:
Okay. There are strong climate change
reasons for building with timber, obviously, and we can agree on
that. What are we going to do to turn that corner?
|
|
[252]
Mr Bishop: The demand is for all timber products, not just
construction—it’s construction, fencing, pallet.
Everything that moves around, everything that comes onto building
sites comes on pallets, so there’s a huge demand across the
board. What we want to see is that we want to displace imports, but
we don’t want to lose the existing business that we’ve
already got. We don’t want to simply replace one product with
another product. We want to expand the whole sector, so that we can
still produce all the fencing materials and pallet materials, for
which there is the demand. All we’re trying to do is to
produce what the customer wants. Forgive us for producing what
customers want. What we want to do is to do some more—do
extra on top of that. We don’t want to lose what we’ve
got to another market.
|
|
[253]
Mr MacLeod: A lot of it is about communication as well, and
educating—educating architects and specifiers. I’m
speaking at a conference tomorrow in Llandrindod Wells on Woodbuild
Wales, and that has basically brought together a number of local
authorities and housing associations and so on, and a good
cross-section of presentations from the sector, from universities,
from academia and so on. I think that’s the sort of event
that we need to actually be using to promote timber into
construction. It’s a good story to tell, and there are some
really good cases as well where we’ve actually demonstrated
you can build affordable homes from timber.
|
|
[254]
Jenny Rathbone:
I absolutely agree with that, but how are
we going to crack the supply problem that we otherwise may have, in
an uncertain world, because at the moment we import it
all—most of it? How are we going to ensure that we’ve
got the security of supply if we’re going to use more
wood?
|
|
[255]
Mr Bishop: Plant more trees.
|
|
[256]
Mr MacLeod: Plant more trees.
|
|
[257]
Mr Edwards: Plant more trees, yes.
|
|
[258]
Jenny Rathbone:
Okay, so—
|
|
[259]
Mr MacLeod: Unanimous. [Laughter.]
|
|
[260]
Jenny Rathbone:
Okay, but how—
|
|
[261]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
That’s it.
|
|
[262]
Jenny Rathbone:
That’s it, fine. We agree on that,
so what’s the problem? Why isn’t private industry
saying, ‘We need more trees, so let’s get out there and
do it.’ Is it because they’re resistant to doing
something that doesn’t reap benefits for 25 years?
|
|
[263] Mr MacLeod: Well, I think there’s a number of reasons. This
situation existed in Scotland about 10 years ago, and, slowly but
surely, we’ve got through a whole raft of changes there,
culminating in the Cabinet Secretary for forestry and
economy—they link the two portfolios in
Scotland—commissioning a report on the regulation from
James McKinnon, who is a retired chief planning officer for
Scotland, and he came up with a number of recommendations, which
actually give a bit more certainty to potential investors.
It’s the certainty, I think, that’s actually lacking
here. So, as David says, there are people here prepared to make
investments, but if they think it’s going to take them two to
three years then they will actually move somewhere else to make
that investment. I think if we can actually create that sort of
environment here in Wales then there will be a willingness to
actually come forward with land and plant it with trees, and then
that will give the knock-on effect as it gives the processors the
confidence to say, ‘Right, okay, well we’ve got
something to pass on to future generations here’.
|
|
[264] Mr
Edwards: The problem is, from the certainty point of view of
inward investors—and it’s the same for existing land
owners as well—that a forest on any scale is going to take
you at least two or three years to get through the process. The
problem we have in Wales is the outcome of that process is
uncertain. In Scotland, it can take two or three years and hundreds
of thousands of pounds to invest in the process of getting approval
for planting, but at least they have a decent idea that at the end
they know what they’re going to get out of it. One of the
issues that we have in Wales is nobody has yet gone through the
full environmental impact assessment process to produce an
environmental statement, which costs, as I say, £150,000 to
£300,000, depending on the circumstances. Nobody is prepared
to spend that sort of money when they’ve got no certainty of
what they’re going to get out of it at the end. And
that’s one of the big differences between Scotland and Wales
currently.
|
|
[265] Jenny
Rathbone: Okay. Well—
|
|
[266] Mr
Bishop: Perhaps it would be—. Could we show members of
the committee the process? It would be good to take you somewhere
to a woodland manager, sit you down in front of the computer
screen, and show you the process that they have to go through to
plant trees. It’s very complex.
|
|
[267] Simon
Thomas: Members of the committee have undertaken their own
visits to several—. And I think one was to a sawmill, I
believe—yes.
|
|
[268] Mr
Bishop: Yes, there have been several to sawmills, but to a
woodland management planner, who actually has to plan this, to show
you the process of going through it—.
|
|
[269] Jenny
Rathbone: But it’s also down to attitude, to what type
of—and how we do it, because, obviously, there are people who
argue that we should have a continuous coverage approach, where,
you know, we immediately take down trees and put up new ones, and
that we don’t necessarily have vast swathes of one particular
type of tree all in one place. So, is that an attitude problem?
|
|
[270] Mr
Bishop: You need both, in my estimation. You need commercial
forestry, which, in general, will have to be a single species
because of management costs, and you need native broadleaveds to do
other things, and you get other benefits from those trees.
I’m not going to sit here and say you need one or
t’other; we need both, and I’m very, very firm on that.
I would be a strong advocate of that. In the business of forest
diversification, for instance, which is what most of the grant
schemes have been pushing towards, we look at diversification at a
forest scale, not at an individual coupe scale. So, what we
envisage is that you would have blocks of a single species in a
forest and you would have different blocks of different species at
different ages. So, you have a mosaic approach of that, and
that’s manageable. That means that you have blocks that are
cost effective to manage, but they’re not the vast
monocultures that we planted in the 1960s.
|
|
[271] Mr
Edwards: And interconnected as well.
|
|
[272] Mr
Bishop: They’re interconnected. And it’s a whole
different way of looking at it. If you have a completely diverse
forest of different species right next to each other, which is what
an ancient woodland or native woodland is, you’re not going
to manage that for commerciality; that’s going to be
different benefits. So, we do need both. We do need both.
Continuous cover, that applies—. You know, continuous cover
is a method of managing. It works. Nobody says it doesn’t
work. It is good for some objectives; it is not good for other
objectives. The exponents of either clear felling or continuous
cover will tell you that their management system is the best and
others are rubbish. I’m sorry, you need both. You will need a
cross-section of both in order to get this diverse forest mix.
|
|
[273] Simon
Thomas: This is a good place to bring in Huw
Irranca-Davies’s line of questioning.
|
|
[274] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Thank you, and I should say thank you to Hamish
and his colleagues for hosting me at BSW, it was—. Sorry for
spending so much time with you and drilling deep into your
operations, but could I just return to the woodland opportunities
map? Just a quick run through the three of you: is the woodland
opportunities map, Hamish, fit for purpose?
|
|
[275] Mr
MacLeod: No.
|
|
[276] Mr
Bishop: No. It’s very good—you know, it’s a
good start; let’s put it that way.
|
|
[277] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Good start. Okay, well that’s fine.
|
|
[278] Mr
Bishop: I think what it’s—
|
|
[279] Huw
Irranca-Davies: I’ll come back, I’ll come back.
|
|
[280] Mr
Edwards: No.
|
|
[281] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Okay. So, now, if you were given free rein, and
the Cabinet Secretary said, ‘Come in, tell me what we can do
to change it’? Would you rip it up, or are there
improvements? Go on.
|
|
12:00
|
|
[282] Mr
Bishop: It is a Glastir woodland opportunities map. It
shows—. It’s got a political element to it, so there
are levels in that geographic information system that score highly
in places where there’s poverty, pollution, and people,
because that’s where Welsh Government want to see Glastir
money spent—RDP money. That’s fine, that’s great,
but that will mean that, actually, the M4 corridor and A55 corridor
will score higher than a place in mid Wales, because of those
political aspirations. And they all know the cost of land in these
northern and southern regions, and the availability is low. So,
it’s not fit for purpose because of what it is. A Glastir
woodland opportunities map, and there are many layers in that map,
is a good thing. It’s got lots of information in there. What
it just needs is, if you like, to almost take the scoring system
out from there just to look at opportunities. I did note that
others have given evidence to say that it was a very top-down
approach, and I would say, ‘No, it isn’t’. It was
compiled by Welsh Government, of course it was, but all the
information in those layers is supplied from non-governmental
organisations, NRW, and those sort of people. So, in that respect,
it’s a bottom–up approach. It just needs—. What I
think it needs is it needs to have a constraints map, where, if
it’s an acid-sensitive area, or, you know, there are genuine
constraints, those stay in. Other layers could be taken in and
taken out. If you’ve got a community forest you want, well,
you want to put a layer in that gives you a high scoring where
there are communities. If you wanted a commercial forest you would
put a higher scoring layer in where the land is available. So,
it’s about revamping that, using the information that’s
in there, because there’s a lot of good stuff in there.
|
|
[283] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Okay. So, that’s absolutely clear that
you would not rip it up and start again. There’s a basis
there, it needs to be refined—possibly other aims and
objectives need to be put into it, and pinned into it, quite
heavily. So, your argument would be that what is needed is a
fundamental review and refresh of that. Could I ask what
involvement did the commercial forestry sector have, if at all,
within the development of those original mapping opportunities?
|
|
[284] Mr
Bishop: It was about the time that I actually came in, so I
didn’t have a huge amount of input in there myself,
but—.
|
|
[285] Mr
Edwards: I think the short answer is we didn’t have much
input into it. A lot of the layers that are in there that make up
the opportunities map are all the reasons why not to plant trees.
What’s not in there are layers as to why to plant trees, or
to have a presumption in favour of trees. One of the other problems
we have with the opportunities map is it’s quite broad brush.
So, if we’re looking to appraise a piece of land as to
whether it’s going to score high or low, apart from, as
Martin says, that it’s along the north coast or the M4
corridor, the issue is that we can’t drill down to an
individual farm scale and actually determine what it is that would
make it score high or low, and we’ve struggled to get that
information out of Welsh Government. We’ve had to resort to
freedom of information requests to get that level of detail, which
is a concern.
|
|
[286] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Okay. One supplementary question: you mentioned
there Tir Gofal. Now, what are your thoughts on Tir Gofal?
|
|
[287] Simon
Thomas: Or Glastir now.
|
|
[288] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Sorry, Glastir, I mean. Sorry, I’m
out-of-date there: Glastir. I’m showing my age.
[Laughter.] Glastir.
|
|
[289] Mr
Edwards: Glastir is the current system, or process,
that’s in place for grant funding of forestry. The only grant
funding that’s available to forestry just now is for woodland
creation, which we’ve been talking about, and also
there’s another grant scheme for planting larch sites, as
part of the process of dealing with phytophthora ramorum or larch
disease, but there’s no general grants under Glastir, or
anything else, for normal woodland management.
|
|
[290] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Okay. And are you looking for grants, or are
you actually looking for a smarter regulatory structure and better
mapping?
|
|
[291] Mr
Edwards: I would prefer a smarter regulatory structure. I think
grants are good for woodland creation, but in terms of ongoing
management—some of my colleagues might shoot me for this,
but, generally, forestry is getting by without grants in terms of
growing commercial crops that the processors want and delivering
all the other multiple benefits that come along with commercial
forestry.
|
|
[292] Mr
Bishop: I’d probably think about two issues with it: we
could learn scale. I think most of the stuff that’s been
planted has been small scale and, in order to be viable to achieve
anything you want to achieve, be it biodiversity, be it water
management, be it commercial forestry, it’s got to operate to
scale. A corner of a farmer’s field is just not going to do
anything for anybody.
|
|
[293] If we get scale,
then everybody will get something of what they want. I’ve
talked quite a lot to RSPB and wildlife trusts about this. If you
had a 100-acre forest being planted, 25 per cent of that at least
would be of biodiversity, native broadleaveds, all sorts of stuff.
So, out of that forest, everybody would get a bit of what they
want. Whereas if you have a small forest—half a hectare or a
hectare here and there—nobody’s getting anything out of
that. So, I think scale is important. We need to think bigger. The
reason we’ve done small scale is because it’s easier to
give permissions for small scale; bigger ones are much more
complicated for the regulator to do.
|
|
[294] The other thing
is that the process is just far too complicated, too slow. It costs
a lot to get schemes through. We heard only yesterday, I think in
rounds 1 or 2 of Glastir woodland creation that only 3 per cent of
round 2 applications have actually been sent out and approved yet,
and we’ve already had round 3, and round 4 is—you know,
it’s really slow. So, that needs—. It needs funding. I
would make a plea for funding for the regulator, Rural Payments
Wales—we’ve got to fund the departments that do
this.
|
|
[295] It’s
interesting—I think apparently the Welsh Government are now
funding some other consultees to forestry to enable them to give
some better information quicker. You ought to be funding the people
who are facilitating it as well. It’s a big plea. It’s
complicated because we’ve separated the functions as well.
Again, what we were hearing yesterday—you apply to Welsh
Government, Welsh Government do a little bit of a first screening,
they send it to NRW, presumably by carrier pigeon, NRW do the
verifications of it, they send it back to RPW for the
contract—you know, it’s just—. Separating the
functions really has not helped.
|
|
[296] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Okay. Fine.
|
|
[297] Simon
Thomas: I should at the start have alerted you that translation
facilities are there if people ask questions in Welsh.
|
|
[298]
Sian, a oedd gen
ti gwestiwn?
|
Sian, did you have a question?
|
|
[299]
Sian Gwenllian:
Ie. Roeddwn i jest eisiau mynd ar
ôl rhywbeth rydych chi wedi’i ateb yn rhannol. Pam es i
i weld melin yn yr ardal sydd yn gwasanaethu Pen Llŷn i gyd,
beth roedden nhw’n ei ddweud wrthyf i oedd y bydden
nhw’n gallu dyblu eu cynnyrch, ond eu bod nhw’n ei
gweld hi’n rhwystredig iawn bod yna lot o ffermydd o gwmpas
fyddai wedi gallu neilltuo rhan o’u tir ar gyfer tyfu’r
coed, ond bod ganddyn nhw ddim diddordeb oherwydd bod y grantiau
ddim yn mynd â nhw i fanna—nid oedd yna
incentive ariannol i fynd â nhw i fanna. Ond beth
rydych chi’n ei ddweud rŵan ydy, hyd yn oed petai
hynny’n digwydd yn rhywle fel Llŷn, er enghraifft, mae
eisiau i fwy na jest hynny ddigwydd ac nad yw newid Glastir neu
newid y cynllun grantiau i amaethwyr, sydd yn bosib, wrth inni ddod
o Ewrop—. Mae modd efallai i ddyfeisio system sydd yn rhoi
mwy o bwyslais efallai ar—bod yna incentive yna i
ffermwyr dyfu coed. Ond beth rydych chi’n ei ddweud ydy bod
hynny yn ei hun ddim yn mynd i fod yn ddigon.
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Yes. I just wanted to ask about something that
you’ve partly answered already. When I went to see a mill in
the area that serves Pen Llŷn, they told me that they could
double their product, but they thought that it was very frustrating
that there were a lot of farms around that would have been able to
earmark some of their land for growing those trees, but they
weren’t interested in that because the grants didn’t
take them in that direction—there was no financial incentive
to do so. But what you’re saying now is that, even if that
did happen somewhere like Pen Llŷn, then we’d need more
than just for that to happen and that changing Glastir or changing
the grant scheme for farmers, which is possible, perhaps, as we
leave Europe—. Maybe a new system could be developed that
puts more emphasis on an incentive for farmers to grow trees. But
what you’re saying is that that in itself is not going to be
enough.
|
|
[300] Mr Bishop: The regulatory stuff will
be key, for sure, but, in the past, we’ve had both a
difficult regulatory regime and perhaps a disincentive, through
lack of financial incentives, for the famer to do it. We’re
in a different place now. Firstly, the support for the farming
sector through CAP and that sort—that could disappear, we
don’t know, and forestry has—. Through demand, prices
have increased dramatically; we are now able to compete. There have
been several cases in the north of England and Scotland where quite
substantial farms have come up for sale and it’s been the
forestry sector that have been the top bidders on those throughout
because the economics stack up now.
|
|
[301] I would draw
your attention to the UK forest market report. This is about
investment. So, this is people who own land buying forests and the
land as well—not particularly landowners—but
they’re desperate to buy land to put into forestry.
It’s been doing over 10 per cent return on investment for
quite a number of years. Pension companies are very interested in
all of this. So, they really think that the economic aspects add
up. What we then have to do is to get the regulatory part right as
well.
|
|
[302] Mr
Edwards: Incentives are important to farmers because
they’ve got to cover that period from where you plant the
trees until you start to get an income. That’s likely to be a
minimum of 15 years to 20 years. So, actually getting that
pump-priming is where the incentive is really important in order to
get that planting started.
|
|
[303] Mr
Bishop: The current Glastir woodland creation schemes do that:
there are 12 years’ worth of payments in there for famers.
Then you say, ‘Well, how much further do you go than
that?’ I don’t know. How much do we support that
sector? That, I feel, is the target area that we ought to be
looking at. Historically, the forestry has been pushed up to the
margins—up on to the hill lands and up on to the difficult
sides, and actually most of that’s the controversial land.
Lots of the biodiversity is up there: the fritillary butterflies
and the peat bogs and all that sort of stuff. The process of
getting permission in the more controversial areas is very
difficult. If we start to target the agricultural land, which has
already improved grassland, theoretically, we should have a lot
less aggravation in getting permissions to do it. That would bring
the cost of getting these schemes through. So, I think
there’s a big opportunity now to look at that.
|
|
[304] Mr
Edwards: There’s definitely an opportunity for
diversification for farmers in the upcoming climate.
|
|
[305]
Simon Thomas: Can we turn to some of the questions around the
regulation around that with Vikki Howells?
|
|
[306]
Vikki Howells: Diolch. So, the Welsh Government has recently decided
not to raise the threshold for mandatory environmental impact
assessments for afforestation projects in non-sensitive areas.
Could I ask you what your views are on that please?
|
|
[307]
Mr Edwards: First, I think it’s disappointing that they
haven’t done it because they’ve done in England and
they’ve done it in Scotland. If we had a higher threshold,
then that would certainly encourage the process of application and
speed it up, because it’s the EIA determination that delays
projects just now. One of the other things in terms of an inward
investor’s point of view is that, if they know that
they’re not going to have to go through an EIA process, then
there’s the opportunity to bid on that land when it becomes
available. One of the problems is that, if you don’t know
whether you’re going to have to go through the full EIA
process at the time of acquisition, when you’re buying the
land, why take that risk and invest? Because you might find that
you can buy the land and then you can’t do anything with it
from a forestry point of view.
|
|
[308]
Mr Bishop: The feedback that I’m getting from people is
that it’s a significant barrier because of the uncertainty.
We would argue that in many areas, yes, an EIA is a good thing to
do—in some of those more difficult, controversial areas. But
if we’re starting to look at already improved agricultural
land, they didn’t need an EIA to change their use of it;
surely forestry would be seen as an improvement on that, so why
have an EIA on that sort of land?
|
|
[309]
Vikki Howells: You talked about the importance of scale earlier as
well, Martin. Do you think that this decision will deter
larger-scale afforestation projects?
|
|
[310]
Mr Bishop: I think it will deter medium scale—let’s
put it that way. I think, possibly, the larger scale, because they
do have the scale of funds to look at this sort of stuff, will get
over it. But if you’ve got a medium-sized scale, those are
the ones that will not come forward.
|
|
[311]
Mr Edwards: I think the problem is that the large-scale investors
have already taken the view that Wales is closed for business for
woodland creation and they’ve gone to Scotland. The inward
investors that we’re finding are individuals rather than the
institutions, so these might be people who are buying 20, 30, 40,
50 or 100 hectares. We’ve had examples last year where we had
three inward investors that all bought farmland with a view to
planting it and they didn’t get accepted into the grant
scheme. One of them has now been accepted through the reserve
process, but that sends out the wrong message to people wanting to
buy land to plant it with trees.
|
|
[312] The other thing about the EIA is that the
environmental protection in terms of the grant process is already
there, beyond the EIA phase, because to actually go through
the Glastir application process, the priority habitats are
protected in terms of what can be grant funded and what
can’t. So, there are two levels of protection, and by raising
the threshold of the EIAs, you don’t actually threaten the
environmental protection side of things.
|
|
12:15
|
|
[313]
Simon Thomas: There’s another protection
available—that’s what you’re saying.
|
|
[314]
Mr Edwards: Yes.
|
|
[315]
Vikki Howells: And just quickly, then, on the note of environmental
issues, Bangor University has been doing some work around
life-cycle assessment and I just wondered what your thoughts were
around that. Do you think that a life-cycle assessment should be
undertaken to help us understand the full impact of forest
management and end products on climate change
mitigation?
|
|
[316]
Mr Bishop: Any information that helps us is going to be good.
Interestingly, there’s quite a lot already out there. If you
look at life-cycle analysis products, most of the construction
sector will have to have what they call an environmental product
declaration, so that they know where the product is and they can
compare concrete versus steel and the environmental impact of
producing that.
|
|
[317]
Wood for Good, which is our sister
organisation that we part fund, produce all of this sort of stuff.
This is one I just happened to print off on softwood—massive
amounts of information. It takes into account forest management and
haulage, the energy use of the sawmill, the water use of the
product and end-of-life disposal—all of that is in this sort
of document and there’s plenty of that out there. It
doesn’t particularly do timber any good because it does miss
out—and it’s a hugely complicated document which is
beyond my pay grade—but as I understand it, it doesn’t
take into account product substitution or carbon storage in
product. That’s partly because of, presumably, lobbying by
concrete and steel, because they didn’t want that into these
life-cycle assessments. But there’s a huge amount of work
being done. It’s there—it’s all out there to do,
if you want it; it’s there.
|
|
[318]
Mr MacLeod: We’re just about to roll this out as a sector
and I’ve been involved with that project over the last three
years to gather the data together and to do the full analysis. As
Martin said, we now have an EPD for our sawn timber as well. Okay,
great, we’ve got that, but how can we use this to our
competitive advantage? I think in large scale, particularly in
public procurement and civil engineering projects, people are
actually starting to ask for the EPD for the various products that
go into building large and massive buildings. So, I think
we’ll have an advantage there where we now can say,
‘This is the value of the timber.’ We started off with
the negative number in the tree, in that we’ve sucked out the
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So, we start with a negative
number in the product input, and so we’re adding to it in
terms of embodied energy and so on and processing and distribution.
We still end up with a very competitive figure at the end of the
day.
|
|
[319]
Mr Edwards: Timber is the greenest of products. It really
is.
|
|
[320]
Vikki Howells: Thank you.
|
|
[321]
Simon Thomas: Jayne Bryant.
|
|
[322]
Jayne Bryant: Diolch. I’m just going to move on to the future
workforce for our forestries. Both the Royal Forestry Society and
the woodland strategy advisory panel are concerned at the lack of
young people enrolled in forestry-related education and training.
Do you agree and how do you think that we should be tackling
that?
|
|
[323]
Mr Edwards: Both Martin and I sit on the woodland strategy
advisory panel, so we would very much concur with that.
There’s been a general decline in people coming into the
forest industry for the last 20 years or so. There’s an
ageing workforce. As a company, what we’re finding is that
we’re taking on graduates as potential managers, whereas 15
years ago, we would have taken on people who had a full forestry
degree, where they’d spent three years or four years at
university studying forestry. We are now finding that we’re
taking on people who have done forestry as part of their course or
even taking on graduates who haven’t done any forestry at all
and then we’re training them as part of the graduate training
programme that we have.
|
|
[324] Then, if you’re going down to the people who
are actually physically doing the work on the ground, again,
there’s an ageing population and it’s about trying to
encourage people to come in and do the work. Tree planting is not a
particularly attractive job. Some of the operations that go
on now, in terms of the sophistication of the harvesting machinery
and whatever—that can be quite an exciting job for
individuals. So, there is a need to constantly work on encouraging
people to come into the industry. One of the issues in terms of the
way that the labour force is organised is that it tends to be on a
subcontract basis. So, you have quite a lot of small contractor
companies and it’s quite difficult for them to take on
apprentices, literally due to the size of the organisation. If
you’re a harvesting contractor, you’re reluctant to
take on somebody to train them up, only then to lose them. If
you’re only employing four or five people and your one good
operator leaves to a competitor, that’s quite difficult. How
do you address that? I’m not sure.
|
|
[325] Jayne
Bryant: Do you think young people know what opportunities
exist— what job opportunities exist—in this field at
all? How do we get that message across to people?
|
|
[326] Mr
Edwards: It is hard to get that message across. The Royal
Forestry Society—they do quite a lot to try and educate, if
you like, the school pupils and young graduates in terms of what
the opportunities are. The Institute of Chartered Foresters, which
I’m currently the president of—they do quite a lot of
work in terms of trying to encourage, but it is an uphill struggle.
It just isn’t out there.
|
|
[327] Jayne
Bryant: I went on a visit to Wentwood forest, which is near
where I live, and it was interesting to see some of the work that
they’d been doing with schools and young people. But I think
there’s still a lot more that could be done, because people
who live near that area don’t actually know some of the
things that are going on—whether that’s people who
perhaps could use the woods or actually work in those job
opportunities. I do think we’re missing a bit of a trick.
|
|
[328] Mr
Bishop: It’s partly our fault, because not many people
join the forestry sector to stand on a soapbox and shout about it.
I certainly didn’t. So, we’ve got to get that message
out there. Confor runs a fairly large biennial forestry show and we
always take school parties around that show. That’s good, and
we’ve got to do a lot more of that, for sure. But the
education authorities, the universities—. Bangor used to be a
real centre of excellence for forestry and they’ve gone much
more into environmental courses and actually they’re coming
back now into the forestry courses. So, it’s about a message
from the whole sector: ‘Environment, yes, that’s been
great, that’s been good, forestry has been not the way to
go.’ But it’s also about, as David said, how
complicated it is. We heard yesterday that even NRW are going to
find it difficult to get their restock programme back on schedule
because the amount of people to plant trees is just not there, and
all you need is a spade. Yes, we can train people up and we can get
this done quite quickly, but it’s a willingness to do that.
You get out on a Welsh hillside, it’s pouring with
rain—it’s not the most attractive.
|
|
[329] Jayne
Bryant: But some people find it a nice, relaxing job, being
outside.
|
|
[330] Mr
Bishop: Some do, yes.
|
|
[331] Jayne
Bryant: Hard work, but it’s quite nice.
|
|
[332] Mr
Bishop: When you get to the other section of it, which is the
more harvesting section, for instance, a lot of the harvesting
companies are one-man operator, one-man owner. Harvesting machines
can cost up to £0.5 million, and most of them have actually
mortgaged their house to buy that machine. So, actually, they
couldn’t take on another one because they’ve already
mortgaged up to their limit. That’s a problem. But the
opportunity is there. I often say to people that the first human
hand to touch a bit of wood is when the carpenter nails it into a
house. Up to that point, it is almost exclusively done by computer
programmers, engineers—right through from the harvesters to
the saw mills. It really is a very, very high-tech sector.
|
|
[333] Mr
Edwards: Apart from when it’s planted.
|
|
[334] Mr
Bishop: Planting’s the basic thing, yes.
|
|
[335] Jayne
Bryant: Planting’s the start.
|
|
[336]
Simon Thomas: Jayne, because we’ve run out of time, can I
move on to David’s questions?
|
|
[337] Jayne
Bryant: Yes, of course you can. No problem.
|
|
[338] Simon
Thomas: We need to wrap up by half past, if that’s okay.
I invite David Melding.
|
|
[339] David
Melding: I’d just like your views on the general standard
of the management of woodlands. Would you say that’s adequate
or is it an area that could be improved?
|
|
[340] Mr
Edwards: Well, the woodlands that we manage are managed to very
high standards, as I’m sure you’d expect me to say.
There is a basic standard that we operate to across the UK and
that’s the UK forest standard. That’s what’s
agreed as good practice across the board and, certainly,
that’s the minimum standard that we would look to manage
woodlands. There is then a higher standard, which is the woodland
assurance standard, and many of the commercial forests in Wales and
the NRW estate—the Welsh Government estate—are managed
to the UK woodland assurance standard, which is a higher standard
still.
|
|
[341] David
Melding: And if we take the basic standard as being the
minimum, then, in terms of commercial forestry, how is that
actually implemented and monitored as a standard?
|
|
[342] Mr
Edwards: In terms of monitoring, there is no active monitoring
from a third party, unlike with the UKWAS, where there is—.
There’s independent third-party auditing of UKWAS estates.
So, the control, if you like, is in terms of when the regulator
gets involved. So, currently, if you want to fell trees you have to
apply for a felling licence. So, that’s when the regulator
becomes directly involved in what you’re doing in terms of
managing your forest. So, they would be overseeing that what
you’re applying for in terms of a felling licence, and what
you’re going to do in terms of restocking that site, meet the
UK forestry standard as a minimum standard. So, that’s the
way they—[Inaudible.]
|
|
[343] David
Melding: That strikes me as evaluating rather than monitoring
because, all right, there’s a test at the end, but there
isn’t one as you’re going on in this 15 or 20-year
cycle, then.
|
|
[344] Mr
Edwards: Yes, but the intervention into the forest is when you
need the permissions, which is when there’s the opportunity
for the regulator to come and see what you’ve done. Up until
that point, you’ve planted, so you’re covered by
regulation and compliance with the UKFS standard at the time of
planting, and then you’re into this growing phase until you
have the first intervention.
|
|
[345] David
Melding: So, if you take either the higher or lower
standard—or perhaps the higher one—does it have any
biodiversity standard?
|
|
[346] Mr
Edwards: Absolutely.
|
|
[347] David
Melding: So, if you’re not monitoring those, how do you
know you’re being successful?
|
|
[348] Mr
Edwards: Well, in terms of the higher standard, you are
monitored.
|
|
[349] David
Melding: Oh, I see.
|
|
[350] Mr
Edwards: You’re regularly audited. In terms of the UKFS,
what you plant is obviously monitored at the time of planting, but
if that’s left to become unmanaged, then there is currently
no intervention, no.
|
|
[351] David
Melding: So, is that where the sector is going to stay, or do
you think—? You know, you’ve talked about wanting to
expand, and perhaps one of the reassurances you could give people
is that even at the lower standard there would be more monitoring,
particularly around—and perhaps improving that standard a bit
so there’s more biodiversity, for instance.
|
|
[352] Mr MacLeod: One of the pull-throughs
is product certification at the end of the day. So, when we
actually send goods out from our mills, they are certified
according to Forestry Stewardship Council, which is based on,
predicated on, this higher standard that David was talking
about—UKWAS. So, to retain our chain of custody, and to
retain our FSC certification, we have to ensure that our suppliers
meet that. So, there is a commercial prerogative on people to
actually manage their woodlands if they’re actually in that
commercial supply chain.
|
|
[353] Mr
Bishop: Another one is the UK timber regulations, which is a EU
regulation. It puts an onus on processors to make sure that what
they’re buying from a woodland is not illegal felling or
anything else. There’s a whole process they have to go
through there. The other way of looking at this is that most of the
managers—. It’s a figure I can’t really pin down,
but it’s about 70 per cent of the forests in Wales that are
managed by agents—probably fewer than 25 people—and all
of those agents are members of the Institute of Chartered
Foresters, of which David is president. That organisation is a
chartered organisation. It has terms, it has references, codes of
conduct, public liability, insurance—lots of things that most
of these managers would want to do the right thing in their forest
management.
|
|
[354] Mr
Edwards: Your forest is a valuable asset, so it makes sense for
people to want to manage it.
|
|
[355] David
Melding: Okay. I’ve got a couple of other questions, but
given the time is up, perhaps we’ll follow those up.
|
|
[356] Simon
Thomas: Yes. We do have to bring this session to an end, but
there are one or two questions that haven’t been
put—perhaps they’ve been covered tangentially, but not
specifically put. If we can write to you, is that okay? If you can
respond to us on that, that would be very helpful. In which case,
I’d just like to thank you for your evidence this morning.
Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi. We
will send a transcript so you can check for veracity, but
that’s the formal conclusion, then. Diolch yn fawr. Thank
you.
|
|
[357] Mr
Bishop: Are you happy for me to leave these for you?
|
|
[358] Simon
Thomas: Yes, please do, and the clerking team will take them.
Diolch.
|
|
12:29
|
|
Papurau i’w Nodi
Papers to Note
|
|
[359]
Simon Thomas:
Mae gennym ni, jest fel pwyllgor, un
peth i’w wneud o hyd yn gyhoeddus, sef eich bod chi’n nodi llythyr oddi wrth
Lywodraeth Cymru ar ddifa moch daear, sy’n esbonio’r
broses, a hefyd llythyr gan Lywodraeth Cymru ynghylch y grŵp
llywio ar reoli ardaloedd morol gwarchodedig. Cawsom gyfle i
holi’r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet am hynny gynnau fach. Pawb yn
hapus i nodi’r rheini?
|
Simon
Thomas: As a committee we just have one other thing we need to
do in public, which is for you to note papers from the Welsh
Government on badger removal, and also a letter from the Welsh
Government on the MPA management steering group. We did have an
opportunity, of course, to discuss the issue with the Cabinet
Secretary earlier. Everyone happy to note those?
|
|
[360] Okay. Thank
you.
|
|
[361]
Mae’r sesiwn yn dod i ben,
felly.
|
That brings our
session to a close, therefore.
|
