.........
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
10:14.
The meeting began at 10:14.
|
|
Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a
Datganiadau o Fuddiant
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
|
[1]
Mike Hedges: No apologies or substitutions. Okay.
|
|
10:15
|
|
Ymchwiliad i Bolisi
Coedwigaeth a Choetiroedd yng Nghymru—Sesiwn Tystiolaeth
Lafar gyda Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru
Inquiry into
Forestry and Woodland Policy in Wales—Oral Evidence Session
with Natural Resources Wales
|
|
[2]
Mike Hedges: We move straight into our first item, which is
the inquiry into forests and woodlands in Wales with Natural
Resources Wales. Can I welcome the panel members? If they could
give their name and title and then the committee members will ask
some questions. Is that okay?
|
|
[3]
Ms van-Velzen: I’m Michelle van-Velzen. I work for
Natural Resources Wales—sustainable land management team
leader, covering forestry as a specialism.
|
|
[4]
Mr Garson: I’m Peter Garson. I’m head of
commercial operations in Natural Resources Wales.
|
|
[5]
Mike Hedges: Thank you both. Can I perhaps say something I
forgot to say at the beginning? Questions and answers can be either
in English or Welsh, and there’s a translation service
available if people wish to speak in Welsh, so they can be
translated.
|
|
[6]
The first question is me on how the current Welsh Government
consultation on the sustainable management of natural resources
links with the forthcoming natural resources policy.
|
|
[7]
Ms van-Velzen: Well, we haven’t yet seen sight of the
national natural resources policy, because it’s not released
yet, but we’ve been involved in its development. I think
there are some really important things in the new ‘Taking
forward Wales’ sustainable management of natural
resources’ consultation. We’re still formulating our
initial responses to that. So, for example, repurposing some of the
duties under the Forestry Act 1967 to be much broader and about
sustainable management of natural resources is very welcome. There
are some very detailed proposals for forestry in that consultation,
which would be very helpful to make some of the improvements
we’re trying to do around forest management planning, and
being able to apply for permits, through that long-term planning
for forests. It’s very welcome, but not necessarily needed in
legislation, although that would be very good as an underpinning
mechanism. I think one of our initial thoughts is that there are
actually some more opportunities around what that potential
legislation could do, particularly around broadening out the
relationship with land use, land-use policy and land-use strategy,
and particularly around, potentially, land-use change. So,
we’re focusing particularly on the potential gaps and some of
the quick wins and opportunities that that legislation could pick
up.
|
|
[8]
Mike Hedges: Thank you very much. If I could move on to
regulation. Huw.
|
|
[9]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Mike. Could I ask you, first
of all—? A lot of the evidence we’ve heard in some of
the rapporteur visits we’ve had has highlighted the
difference in approach, or what we’ve been told is a
difference in approach, to regulation between Wales and Scotland.
Dave Edwards from Tilhill Forestry, when he was before the
committee, talked about the overly rigorous enforcement of
regulations and said it was the biggest obstacle to new woodland
creation in Wales:
|
|
[10]
‘there’s much more of a will in Scotland’,
|
|
[11]
he said,
|
|
[12]
‘to enable planting, whereas in Wales it’s much more
about reasons not to plant.’
|
|
[13]
Is he right?
|
|
[14]
Ms van-Velzen: I think there are some differences. There are
some important differences, particularly in the
regulations—the environmental impact assessment
regulations—particularly the updates made and the opportunity
made in the May 2017 amendments. So, for example, the non-sensitive
areas in Scotland are the threshold—the size threshold has
moved to 50 hectares, whereas in Wales, ours has remained the same
for new woodland creation—
|
|
[15]
Huw Irranca-Davies: And they were very
disappointed—the commercial sector, particularly, has been
very disappointed. So, why? Do you understand their concerns, or is
that right—not to make the increase?
|
|
[16]
Ms van-Velzen: Our consultation response to Welsh
Government, who had made the amendments and the proposals, was that
we should, indeed, have some sort of increase in threshold. For
example, we recommended that we should potentially take the way
that England has gone, in terms of trying to identify low-risk
areas and then increase the size threshold to something according
to that. So, for example, in England it’s 20 hectares.
|
|
[17]
Huw Irranca-Davies: So, will you be looking at that
again?
|
|
[18]
Ms van-Velzen: Well, it’s actually a Welsh Government
responsibility for those amendments—
|
|
[19]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, okay, but you—
|
|
[20]
Ms van-Velzen: We’ve made some recommendations around
that.
|
|
[21]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Fair enough. But would you accept their
basic premise that, because of issues like that—the hectarage
issue and the size and so on—actually, the EIA process in
Wales can be far more expensive than it is in Scotland, and it is a
barrier to growing the forestry estate?
|
|
[22]
Ms van-Velzen: I think there are certainly some improvements
that we can make. I don’t think we should pretend
that—. Trying to regulate for land-use change is actually
quite a complex and difficult thing to do. It’s extremely
site specific, and you have to work with the local stakeholders
to get it right. I think that we do need
to try and work more closely with everybody involved to seize the
opportunities when they arise, and perhaps give people some more
tools to think about. I think when we’re talking about trying
to safeguard the environment, particularly around protected
habitats and species, or perhaps preserving the integrity of the
special character of some historic landscape areas, it’s a
very nuanced decision to make. No lines on maps can actually give
you the answer.
|
|
[23]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
I absolutely understand that, and clearly
you’re taking a very sensitive and, if you like, intelligent,
granular approach to it. How do you square that with the challenges
we have on woodland creation? I don’t need to tell you the
figures of how far behind the level of ambition we currently have
we are, let alone what we’d like to do in the future. The
regulatory process—if it is a barrier, how do you square that
detailed, sensitive approach to ‘we need to get on with
this’?
|
|
[24]
Ms van-Velzen: We do, but we also need to balance that with
protecting and safeguarding the environment, don’t
we?
|
|
[25]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
So point the direction through for me.
What’s this new toolkit of ways to improve the regulatory
system that you’re going to offer to woodland
creators?
|
|
[26]
Ms van-Velzen: I think one of the opportunities is presented around
the public services boards’ well-being plans. They will help
create some expectations of what people would like in places. It
will get a whole bunch of stakeholders around the table to actually
agree that we would like new woodland of this type in these types
of areas, and I also think that the development of area statements
will help in that process, too. So, that’s part of the
package of measures, but I do think that we need, perhaps, a better
approach to trying to co-create some of the larger woodland
creation management plans—having a better forum, a better
process.
|
|
[27]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Some of the larger ones.
|
|
[28]
Ms van-Velzen: Yes, because I think that, for example, the Glastir
woodland creation scheme—all woodland creation proposals,
whether they’re 0.25 of a hectare or whether they’re
400 hectares, go through the same verification process to EIA
standards. Perhaps if we looked at low risk and concentrated on the
high-risk, larger proposals, then maybe we’d get a bit
further.
|
|
[29]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
And is that intelligent approach to a
lighter touch for those low-risk areas under way? What timescales
do we have if it is under way?
|
|
[30]
Ms van-Velzen: We need to work with Welsh Government on that,
probably into the next round of rural development funding and
support payments, because it’s within the Glastir rules that
that is set that all schemes will go through that
process.
|
|
[31]
Mike Hedges: We’re moving on to funding and Glastir now.
Sian.
|
|
[32]
Sian Gwenllian:
Jest cyn i ni fynd i fanna,
rwy’n meddwl fy mod i’n pigo i fyny ychydig bach o
ddiffyg eglurder yn y maes yma rhwng beth mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn
ei wneud a beth mae Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn ei wneud. A ydw
i’n gywir? A oes yna ddiffyg eglurder?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Just before we move on to that, I think that
I’m picking up a little lack of clarity in this area between
what the Welsh Government is doing and what Natural Resources Wales
is doing. Am I right in that? Is there a lack of clarity?
|
|
[33]
Mr Garson: Well, the roles are defined in terms of how the
Glastir scheme operates—
|
|
[34]
Sian Gwenllian: I mean generally now, not just on
Glastir.
|
|
[35]
Mr Garson: I think there may be a lack of understanding in
some areas. Some responsibilities changed just before Natural
Resources Wales was created. Grant aid responsibilities went to the
Welsh Government and I think people weren’t entirely clear
what changed when NRW was set up as opposed to what had changed
previously. There is quite close working between NRW and the Welsh
Government in terms of the policy teams and I think it is becoming
clearer for people, but it has been difficult, I think, for people
to understand in the early stages of NRW.
|
|
[36]
Sian Gwenllian: So there are some issues of lack of
clarification that need sorting out.
|
|
[37]
Mr Garson: I think most of the clarification has been done,
but it may be that not all stakeholders are fully aware of that.
Certainly some of the evidence put to this committee suggests there
may still be a little bit of lack of understanding about where that
is, so maybe there’s more to do to communicate that.
|
|
[38]
Sian Gwenllian: Okay. Thank you.
|
|
[39]
Gwnaf droi at y cwestiynau
ynglŷn â’r cyllid. Yn amlwg, rydym ni angen creu
mwy o goetiroedd yng Nghymru—mae hynny’n hollol amlwg—ac un ffordd o
wneud hynny ydy cyfeirio arian tuag at ffermydd. Mae yna
feirniadaeth wedi bod bod y cynlluniau o dan Glastir yn llawer rhy
gymhleth. A ydych chi’n credu eu bod nhw’n gymhleth, ac
a ydy’n nhw’n effeithiol fel maen nhw ar hyn o
bryd?
|
I will turn to
the questions in relation to the funding. Obviously, we do need
greater woodland creation in Wales—that is entirely
obvious—and one way of doing so is to direct funding to
farms. There has been criticism that the schemes under Glastir were
far too complex. Do you believe that they are complex, and are they
effective as they are currently?
|
|
[40]
Mr Garson: They aren’t particularly attractive to
applicants. They tend to be quite prescriptive, and they
don’t give that much scope for applicants to design a
woodland that meets their needs. For example, there isn’t a
grant aid available for open space within a woodland, which is a
quite important part if you’re designing a woodland;
it’s not just the trees. So, I think that that prescriptive
approach does make it less attractive to applicants, and the grant
rates are not as attractive as they might be.
|
|
[41]
Ms van-Velzen: I think there’s far greater scope,
particularly now that we’re designing a new rural development
scheme, perhaps to reflect the different types—the whole
spectrum of woodland types that could be created, and the different
ways that they can be created: the whole spectrum from, say, the
rewilding scenario with natural regeneration of trees, maybe some
planting and very sparse cover—maybe just 20 per cent of the
land area—alongside some funding for the open areas and the
open habitats that you may want to support in those areas. But also
perhaps, maybe, some support for the other end of the spectrum,
which would be UK forestry standard-compliant woodland, maybe at
the larger scale. You know, the new, big forests of Wales, because
that’s where the big gains are going to come, particularly in
terms of hectarage, and the ability to have good quality forest
products coming out. It would realise that substitution potential
for the carbon-rich materials. So, trying to reflect that whole
spectrum of woodlands in the grant scheme and support would
probably yield greater results.
|
|
[42]
Sian Gwenllian:
Ac a oes angen mwy o gyllid
hefyd?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: And is there a need for greater funding also?
|
|
[43]
Does the financial package itself need to be bigger?
|
|
[44]
Ms van-Velzen: I guess so, but there are lots of other ways
of trying to fund woodland creation, too, which I think we have to
seize on, and perhaps see how the rural development
funding—the public support—can complement it. So, for
example, on the Welsh Government woodland estate, with the energy
development programme we have a compensatory planting fund built
from the options money and from the developers. So, we’re
able to use that money to create new woodland elsewhere. If that
money’s put together with other sources of funding, perhaps
leveraging in woodland carbon code-type funding and private
investment, that’s another way of making the money go
further.
|
|
[45]
Sian Gwenllian: So, there are opportunities coming our way,
hopefully, with creating a new policy.
|
|
[46]
Ms van-Velzen: Absolutely, as long as it can link into much
broader policies than just ‘Woodlands for Wales’, and
making ‘Woodlands for Wales’ work harder with other
Welsh Government policies, such as the developing land use
strategy, and so forth.
|
|
[47]
Sian Gwenllian: Okay. Turning to the map—
|
|
[48]
—map cyfleodd creu coetir
Glastir—pa mor effeithiol ydy hwnnw ar hyn o bryd?
|
—the Glastir woodland opportunities map—how effective
is that map currently?
|
|
[49]
Ms van-Velzen: The woodland opportunities map as it is at
the moment, which is a Welsh Government product, is designed to
support the scoring mechanism for where the grant scheme for
Glastir woodland creation may be oversubscribed. So, therefore, if
it’s oversubscribed, you would score more points in certain
areas where the opportunity to create public benefit is higher. The
way that it works is that it’s a mixture of information:
environmental data that you may want to use within your woodland
creation plans, but also constraints, so things where you may not
be able to plant woodlands—priority open habitats, for
example, important for birds, or open spaces. But then, also,
it’s a mixture of opportunity mapping—so, where the
research and the science are showing us that woodlands would make a
really stunning contribution to flood risk management or open
access. And so, because it’s a mixture of that information,
it’s not necessarily that useful for the customer at the
other end, trying to have an interface into that scheme. I think
that there’s more to do between Welsh Government and us to
provide more spatial information that’s much more
user-friendly.
|
|
10:30
|
|
[50]
Sian Gwenllian: So, how can it be improved?
|
|
[51]
Ms van-Velzen: But of course, that costs and, you know, with
limited budgets and so forth, it’s difficult to make those
improvements overnight, but we have made significant improvements
to that, and working with partners. And I think that part of the
problem is the ability of others to be able to give us some data,
and the spatial data are only going to be useful to a certain
extent; it’s not necessarily—. You can’t
necessarily use it. The resolution isn’t necessarily good
enough to use, say, at field level. It’s a strategic
tool.
|
|
[52]
Mike Hedges: Simon.
|
|
[53]
Simon
Thomas: Os caf i ddilyn lan ar y pwynt penodol yma, wrth ateb Sian
Gwenllian, roeddech chi’n awgrymu bod y map creu cyfleoedd yn
fwy o arf i Lywodraeth bennu ceisiadau yn hytrach nag arf sydd yn
helpu pobl i gynllunio lle i greu coetiroedd. A ydy hynny’n
deg, i gasglu hynny?
|
Simon
Thomas: If I could just follow up on that specific point, in
answering Sian Gwenllian, you suggested that the opportunities map
was more of a tool for the Government to set applications rather
than a tool that helps people to plan places for woodland creation.
Is that a fair conclusion?
|
|
[54]
Ms van-Velzen: It’s very much a mix of the two, and I
don’t think necessarily the way that it’s served up to
people is as user-friendly as it might be.
|
|
[55]
Simon Thomas: But that would explain why, as a committee,
we’ve received people telling us that that hasn’t been
a useful tool to allow them to plan for woodland expansion.
|
|
[56]
Ms van-Velzen: Yes. It’s something that we recognise
most certainly between NRW and Welsh Government; we need to make
improvements to that.
|
|
[57]
Simon Thomas: Okay. Diolch.
|
|
[58]
Sian Gwenllian: And you’ve started with the
geo-portal, Lle. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
|
|
[59]
Ms van-Velzen: So, that is the way that the opportunity maps
are served up at the moment.
|
|
[60]
Sian Gwenllian: Right. But are there improvements happening
in that sphere as well?
|
|
[61]
Ms van-Velzen: Yes, there are, but, as I said, there are
some limitations as to how much can be done.
|
|
[62]
Sian Gwenllian: And is there any kind of timetable on that
for any kind of—?
|
|
[63]
Ms van-Velzen: Not as such, no. It’s an ongoing piece
of work that we’re trying to make incremental changes to.
|
|
[64]
Sian Gwenllian: Do you feel that that will actually change
the situation, or does it need to be a sort of start from the
beginning?
|
|
[65]
Ms van-Velzen: I don’t think it needs to start from
the beginning; I think that Lle is actually a very good way
of—. It’s a very good entry point, and it’s good
to have it in the one place. But I do think that we need different
user views, so that it’s very, very clear to a planner
who’s trying to create a woodland plan exactly what they can
use the data for and perhaps link in to the contacts—you
know, have better metadata sat behind it, so that you’ve got
a direct link to the person who you can ask for interpretation and
support.
|
|
[66]
Sian Gwenllian: One criticism has been that it’s sort
of—. You need to provide a lot of reasons for planting trees,
rather than reasons not to plant. That’s one of
the—.
|
|
[67]
Mr Garson: I think Michelle was saying earlier on that, in
the future, we may have clearer strategies about what we want to
achieve, and at the moment, we’ve got information there and
perhaps that information isn’t yet informed by a strategic
aspiration.
|
|
[68]
Sian Gwenllian: Where we going. Okay. I get that.
|
|
[69]
Mr Garson: That may come over time.
|
|
[70]
Sian Gwenllian: I understand. Thank you.
|
|
[71]
Mike Hedges: Diolch. David, do you want to talk about the woodland
strategy advisory panel?
|
|
[72]
David Melding: I do indeed, thank you, Chair. This seems to be
another area of confusion about its purpose, and I think, in
fairness, this has been acknowledged by NRW in calling for a
revitalised and more dynamic approach, which I think is code for a
fairly comprehensive rethink about what this advisory panel is
there for. You’ve got some what you would have thought were
key players who should be included, these environmental and
recreational interests especially, but then Confor are saying,
‘No, no, it’s not a strategic advisory panel at all;
it’s a Government to the commercial sector liaison
body.’ You know, if you call something a ‘woodland
strategy advisory panel’, it clearly implies that it’s
taking a pretty ambitious overview of things and giving the views
of key stakeholders in a comprehensive fashion. So, can you tell us
what your understanding is at the moment and what it should become,
then, and what should be its purpose?
|
|
[73]
Ms van-Velzen: Okay, so, in our written response, we said
that we recognised the real value of having that body of experts
sat around the table. I think that, in a lot of ways, it does a
great deal of good work. It’s the Welsh Government’s
woodland strategy advisory panel. We have two members who have been
selected to sit on that panel. I think that the work—. We
thought it could become far more of a driving force, and
particularly that it would be more effective if the committee was
recognised perhaps around other Welsh Government fora—so, for
example, the Minister’s round table on Brexit—and then
it would become more strategic. I think it hasn’t always been
able to reach the other parts of policy and policy delivery.
|
|
[74]
David Melding: Let’s just understand this fully. So,
basically, the current dynamics there are set by the Minister and
her civil servants. You’re pretty much one of the
stakeholders on that group. Is that part of the problem—that
you’re the arm’s-length agency that should really be
giving us energy in this sector, and by the sound of it, we
don’t even know what the purpose of this advisory panel
is?
|
|
[75]
Ms van-Velzen: There are clear terms of reference for the
panel. It has a clear remit to deliver the aspirations of the
woodland strategy, and it owns an action plan around that, and it
also owns a set of indicators. I think that the action plan at the
moment is picking off smaller actions, manageable actions, and
hasn’t necessarily been able to lever in work, particularly
by the third sector and other contributors to deliver it, whereas
it could and probably should be focusing much more on the
big-ticket issues.
|
|
[76]
David Melding: I think you are diplomatically saying that
you agree that the environmental and recreational groups that are
not on it should be, and that it’s not a narrow liaison body
between Government and the commercial sector.
|
|
[77]
Ms van-Velzen: I mean, don’t get me wrong, the
woodland strategy advisory panel has done some really good work in
a task-and-finish capacity, for example, providing consultation
responses to the early consultation on Brexit and the new rural
development fund. I think that perhaps it’s not necessarily
recognised as much as it should be.
|
|
[78]
David Melding: And in that more expansive role that you were
indicating it is capable of performing, how’s it done with
the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which is
obviously the key legislative vehicle in this whole area for
strategy and target setting over an inter-generational period? You
couldn’t think of a better example than forestry and woodland
for needing that approach. So, how’s it done in the stages so
far of using the future generations Act, would you say?
|
|
[79]
Ms van-Velzen: I think the panel is very well versed,
actually, on the future generations Act.
|
|
[80]
David Melding: Well, I hope they are, but are they actually
using it?
|
|
[81]
Ms van-Velzen: I think that, yes, they are using it, and
they’d like to have more of a role around public services
boards. If they were able to provide evidence packs, perhaps, to
those public services boards, and their voice was heard more
clearly, there may well be more impact, but I don’t think
that they actually have—they haven’t been given that
permission, almost, to do so. They don’t have that kind of
lever.
|
|
[82]
David Melding: Thank you.
|
|
[83]
Mike Hedges: Commercial forestry, Jenny.
|
|
[84]
Jenny Rathbone:
Yes. Everybody seems to waiting on
somebody else to take some actions and, in the meanwhile,
there’s not a lot happening. First of all, just looking at
commercial forestry, I just wonder why it is that we’ve
failed to meet our own planting targets by a factor of 10. You
know, we’re planting 3.5 million hectares, rather than 35. I
mean, that’s massive. It’s such an important strategic
objective, I can’t understand why we don’t have a
clearer strategy. I wondered if you could just underline why our
performance to date has been so disappointing.
|
|
[85]
Mr Garson: I think it’s a combination of things. There
are the concerns raised around regulation that were discussed
earlier, but there are obviously resource constraints as well. We
do have a mechanism for woodland creation through Glastir, but the
budget allocations within that would not be sufficient in
themselves to meet the targets. There are some quite strong signals
from the private sector that there is a willingness from investors
and woodland owners to invest in woodland creation, but they are
seeing more opportunities in Scotland, where the incentives,
perhaps, are a little bit more generous but land values are lower.
There are quite a lot of constraining factors in Wales that have
held back the delivery of that objective.
|
|
[86]
Jenny Rathbone:
So, why haven’t you taken an axe to
the regulations to ensure that we are competitive with
Scotland?
|
|
[87]
Mr Garson: As Michelle said earlier on, there are lots of good
reasons for the regulations. I think that we have got to streamline
how they operate, and we have got to help applicants get through
regulations. I don’t think the regulations are fundamentally
wrong in what they are trying to do. It’s about how we align
the regulatory processes with the grant-aid process. At the moment,
it can be difficult for people to align their applications, get
them through regulation and then have their grant application
approved in time, and then implement their planting scheme. It just
seems quite difficult, from an applicant’s point of view.
There are a number of things that we can do on that, and there is
an initiative to try and identify the blockages to woodland
creation and some projects around—
|
|
[88]
Jenny Rathbone:
How quickly is that going to report, and
act?
|
|
[89]
Ms van-Velzen: So,
for example, in Scotland and England, the grants and the regulation
and the information and advice is much closer. It’s done from
one place. So, you’ve got a relationship for customers here
between Rural Payments Wales, Welsh Government and ourselves as
verifiers. That’s our role. So, for Glastir woodland
creation, we have actually now—rather than having to go to
four departments in our organisation—just one place; one team
is the contact point, covering all of our different roles. So,
that’s for environmental impact assessments, the
environmental information, and the data and advice that you would
need. I have to explain that we’ve improved our processing
time, down from an average of 51 days, say, three years ago, to
today where it is now 35 days on average to process that through
one place.
|
|
[90]
Jenny Rathbone:
Okay, but we still—. Either the
message hasn’t got out, or we still haven’t actually
implemented this. The commercial sector is saying clearly that,
because the regulations require investors to put up between
£150,000 and £300,000, with little guarantee that their
investment will actually come to fruition, they’ve lost
interest in Wales because they think Wales is closed for business,
and they’re off to Scotland.
|
|
[91]
Ms van-Velzen: Very
little woodland creation is done without some form of public
incentive. So, in Wales, woodland creation going from April 2016 to
April 2018, woodland in the pipeline is around 1,800 hectares,
which is more than the figures that have been quoted in the press
lately and also in our evidence of previous performance of around
200 hectares a year. The scheme has been oversubscribed for the
first time in quite a long time. I think that the woodland types
that are supported in Wales are around carbon, native biodiversity
and enhanced mixed woodland. We haven’t got that spectrum of
woodland types supported, whereas Scotland do.
|
|
[92]
Jenny Rathbone:
But, don’t we need both? I
appreciate that, on broadleaf, there is a good story to tell, but
on softwood, it’s abysmal. Meanwhile, the commercial sector
say that, within 10 years, there will be no wood to work with that
is native.
|
|
[93]
Ms van-Velzen: I
think that what I was trying to explain was that, in Scotland,
there are incentives for that commercial softwood within the grant
scheme, whereas there isn’t here in Wales.
|
|
[94]
Jenny Rathbone:
But, we seem to have become totally grant
dependent. Commercial forestry is something that is going to create
a profit. Obviously, it is a long-term profit. Nevertheless,
it’s a profit. What is your strategy for ensuring that
we’ve got enough investment to meet our longer term
commercial needs, given that there is increasing demand for
wood-built construction of buildings? Powys is the first local
authority to go for a wood-first policy, but hopefully, they are
not going to be the last. But, if we don’t have Welsh-sourced
wood to work with, it clearly makes it more expensive.
You’re the head of commercial operations, Peter. What are we
actually doing to grasp this nettle, given the long lead-in time
required to sort this problem out?
|
|
10:45
|
|
[95]
Mr Garson: NRW’s direct involvement with forestry is
around the management of the public forest estate. So, we do have
long-term plans for the forests that we manage directly. We are
replanting a mixture of different types of woodlands on those
estates and we will have long-term, sustained levels of production
on the public forest estate. However, they will be at a lower level
than we’ve had in the last 20 or 30 years, where production
had built up to a plateau. As we restructure those forests,
we’re rebalancing the forests and the proportion of land that
is dedicated to production as the prime objective will be lower
than originally. So, we won’t be reducing to nothing, but it
will be lower than the current level of production. So, there is an
importance there in terms of new planting and it is important. At
the moment, NRW doesn’t directly get involved with
large-scale new planting, new woodland creation, and the strategy
is to try and encourage woodland creation on other land.
|
|
[96]
Jenny Rathbone: But it’s not happening at the moment,
because the statistics tell us.
|
|
[97]
Mr Garson: Not fast enough. Not fast enough.
|
|
[98]
Jenny Rathbone: So, this is extremely worrying. NRW is a
major commercial player in the wood sector in Wales, and one of the
concerns is that you’re not using the profits from the sales
of wood to reinvest, to restock. But you’re instead using it
on flood mitigation, topping up the pension—other things. Why
is that?
|
|
[99]
Mr Garson: Well, that’s the perception. In reality,
there is a net cost of managing the public forest estate. If you
add up all the costs and revenues, there’s a net cost, so
there isn’t actually an overall profit for managing the
estate. There’s a net cost. We have had some improvements in
the timber market in the last few years, and that’s been very
helpful, and we are using that to increase the amount of replanting
that we do because we’ve been felling an increased area due
to tree disease. But there isn’t a profit overall that is
available to put into flood risk or other areas. We’ve got
some rules around where we can spend income and the income from
timber production has to remain within a broad set of forestry
activities.
|
|
[100]
Jenny Rathbone:
Okay. So—
|
|
[101] Mike
Hedges: Can I let Huw in and then Simon? I’ll come back
to you, then. Huw.
|
|
[102] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Yes. To build on what Jenny was saying, it
seems that we’re nowhere near the framework of grant funding
and so on that would allow the expansion that we want to see of the
right sort of good forestry, with biodiversity within it and so on,
and commercial woodland. It’s unlikely that suddenly the
magic money tree will be shaken and we’ll find lots of money
flowing into grant funding for forestry of that scale that we want.
So, I just put to you: should we be looking at other measures that
can incentivise it where we keep the high and we improve the
regulatory standards? But should we be revisiting things such as
the fiscal incentives around this, the things we got rid of in
the—? Not to go back to the pre-1998 one, but, when those
fiscal incentives were removed, it nosedived. Should we be looking
at, once again, lobbying the UK Government to say, ‘If
you’re serious about woodland creation, both commercial and
broadleaved, you need to look at the fiscal strategy that actually
boosts that with the right regulatory structure’, so
it’s not all relying on grant funding?
|
|
[103] Mr
Garson: I think we’d have to learn from what worked and
what didn’t work so well on those. The other thing we need to
remember is that those fiscal incentives were effective in the
1970s and 1980s because tax rates were higher, so they were
attractive to people. Obviously, taxation has changed dramatically.
I think it’s a difficult thing to change those levers, and
they were quite crude levers at the time. So, given today’s
policy objectives, we’d have to have a thought about how we
incentivise the right type of woodland creation. I think we need to
look at the barriers to woodland creation, and one of the major
ones is the common agricultural policy and the way in which
that’s created a very high value on agricultural land. So, I
guess the—. If we’re looking at the fiscal environment,
it would be more in the Brexit, post-Brexit type situation where
there may be more opportunities for woodland creation.
|
|
[104] Ms
van-Velzen: I think particular—
|
|
[105] David
Melding: How is France one of the most successful countries at
reforestation, then, if this is a real big problem? I mean,
obviously, land values will be different, but I mean—. And
Spain, also, has seen an astonishing—by our standards,
anyway—increase, and they’ve had to grapple with the
CAP, presumably, as well.
|
|
[106] Mr
Garson: Well, Britain is fantastically successful on
reforestation. It’s probably the only country in the world
that finished the twentieth century with three times more woodland
than it started with, and it’s internationally respected for
that in forestry. Woodland creation in France and Spain is partly
due to rural depopulation. They’ve got a lot of land
abandonment in areas, so we’re getting woodlands created, and
there will be situations in marginal areas in Wales where
successional natural regeneration gives rise to woodland cover, but
it is woodland cover of a certain type and it’s not
necessarily going to answer the industry’s concerns, but it
will have definitely a role to play in terms of producing a more
treed landscape.
|
|
[107] Jenny
Rathbone: How—
|
|
[108] Mike
Hedges: I’ve got Simon, and then I’ll come back to
you.
|
|
[109] Jenny
Rathbone: Okay.
|
|
[110]
Simon Thomas: No, I just—. Because I want to tackle the
commercial side at this stage. You just said to the committee that
you don’t make a profit on your woodland, and you’ve
been going since the 1930s or whenever it was. It’s not
surprising, then, if you’re not making—. ‘Net
cost’, you said: if you’re not making a profit on it,
then how on earth are we expecting any commercial company to be
making profits in Wales?
|
|
[111]
Mr Garson: Our timber production activities do cover their
costs, so, if you add up the timber income and the restocking costs
and the maintenance of infrastructure on the estate, that is
generating a return. But that return isn’t sufficient to
cover, say, the provision, the costs of recreation on the public
forest estate. We invite a lot of public access and recognition for
policy reasons, and that has a cost.
|
|
[112]
Simon Thomas: So, whichever way you look at it, then, your
experience would suggest to me that if we’re approaching
woodland with the aim of fulfilling all the aims of the future
generations Act—and that includes commercial woodland, but it
also includes access and everything else—at some stage along
this there has to be public money going into this.
|
|
[113]
Mr Garson: Well, we have—
|
|
[114]
Simon Thomas: To provide the sort of woodlands in Wales that people
like and enjoy and we’ve walked around, you need public money
and quid pro quo seems to suggest we’re a bit strange if we
expect this to all happen naturally, just as a commercial
venture.
|
|
[115]
Mr Garson: Well, I think you definitely need public money to
establish a forest, and by ‘establish’, I mean go
through the first rotation so that you’ve got a
crop—the forest in the productive state—and with the
infrastructure to harvest timber. There are other things that we
can do to generate income off land. We’ve got a significant
renewable energy programme, for example, and, by the time that
renewable energy programme matures, that will probably close the
funding gap between our income and expenditure on the land as a
whole. So, I think we mustn’t assume that timber’s the
only way of generating income off land. We can take other
opportunities. There are some commercial recreation opportunities
on the land, and it’s about how we build those things
together in a way that provides an overall package.
|
|
[116]
Simon Thomas: I’m just trying to—. I appreciate that
from Natural Resources Wales’s point of view, but I’m
just trying to understand why we haven’t seen commercial
expansion in Wales in the way it has happened in Scotland. One
issue raised with the committee has been about regulation, except
that, when you look at it, the regulation seems to be the
same—it’s perhaps the interpretation that might be a
bit different—but this is the other issue. Is it simply that
the financial incentives are enough in Scotland to get people over
that confidence hurdle?
|
|
[117]
Ms van-Velzen: I think they also have a clearer land-use strategy at
the moment. I know that’s something that’s been spoken
about in policy development terms in Welsh Government. I think that
if that land-use strategy can be more cognisant of the value of
forestry and timber across all those spectrums of different
woodland types—the value and benefit that they can
provide—that will help a great deal. That’s not
necessarily about changing land use. It might be about how a more
commercial woodland could help sustain the farm business, but it
also might be about where land changes ownership, being more
creative around those or seizing those opportunities when those
arise, because that’s where the larger schemes come
from. The predominant woodland creation that’s
happened in the last five years or so has been small, it’s
been field edges, field margins, small in-field shelter belts, and
not those large woodland, maybe forestry, type opportunities of a
larger scale.
|
|
[118] Mike
Hedges: Okay. We return to Jenny.
|
|
[119] Jenny
Rathbone: Just to come back on this—because it’s
clear from what you’re saying that, obviously, at the moment,
we’re using the commercial sales of wood owned by NRW to
subsidise the recreational and forest access benefits that are
managed by NRW. It’s a perfectly valid thing to do, but it
does beg the question, therefore: what is NRW’s role in
ensuring that if NRW isn’t resourced to continue to build our
commercial resources—? What are you doing to ensure that the
commercial sector, the pension funds—you know, the public at
large—are being encouraged to invest in commercial woodland,
which we need for our future survival?
|
|
[120] Mr
Garson: Our prime role in this is as a regulator now, but we
obviously have an enabling role as well. We do have initiatives
that we’re participating in with Welsh Government. I
mentioned earlier on the initiative around addressing blockages in
woodland creation, which is trying to find collaborative solutions
to clear the barriers.
|
|
[121] Jenny
Rathbone: Okay. So, do you think it requires a complete rethink
of the woodland opportunities map to highlight areas of restraint
around, you know, flood mitigation, or poisoning of waters, or
things like that, but then assume that all the other areas not
marked on the map are areas that are open for commercial
development?
|
|
[122] Ms
van-Velzen: It’s not quite as simple as having a better
map. I think it’s more about developing a process where
people can have that conversation, particularly around the larger,
higher risk of having an environmental impact scheme. So, one of
the things that Welsh Government and the Glastir money has done
lately is provide the opportunity for those main players to sit
down under the co-operative forest planning scheme, come together
and have those conversations. So, for example, Confor and the
Woodland Trust have a proposal in there to look at what can be
done. There’s another proposal around working with common
land and the national parks and so forth. That’s about
bringing people together to look at what can realistically be
created and where and how, which will help inform some of those
potentially larger schemes to come forward.
|
|
[123] Jenny
Rathbone: Would you accept that there are large swathes of mid
Wales and elsewhere that could be used for commercial forestry
development?
|
|
[124] Ms
van-Velzen: There are, but that has to be balanced against some
of the environmental safeguarding that has to happen too, because
large proportions of upland Wales are designated landscapes, for
example, and I think that’s one of the opportunities of this
new legislation that comes through, that, if it’s looked at
in the round—
|
|
[125] Jenny
Rathbone: Sorry, which new legislation?
|
|
[126] Ms
van-Velzen: Sorry, the current consultation that you have on
‘Taking Forward Wales’ Sustainable Management of
Natural Resources’.
|
|
[127] Jenny
Rathbone: Okay. So, you’re hoping that the outcome of
that consultation will lead to a much more simplified process so
that commercial operators can see where the opportunities are.
|
|
[128] Ms
van-Velzen: I think simplification is one part of it, but
it’s also about joining up those different policy drivers and
those different processes.
|
|
[129] Mike
Hedges: Your colleague wants to say something.
|
|
[130] Mr
Garson: Yes. I think there’s something other to bear in
mind as well: the majority of potentially plantable land in Wales
is agricultural land and the great majority of that is farmed by
owner-occupiers, and there isn’t a great tradition in Wales
of farming and forestry sitting together comfortably. They’re
often perceived as adversaries, and not many farmers are interested
in forestry as an alternative to farming. They may be interested in
tree planting as an ancillary thing to enhance the farm and perhaps
creating diversification opportunities, but very few of them would
be looking to commercial forestry as an alternative to farming. So,
it’s a hard sell. People tend to stick with what they know
and where their expertise is, and—
|
|
[131] Jenny
Rathbone: Well, the change is coming down the road for
sure.
|
|
[132] Mr
Garson: It is. There have been economic appraisals of the
relative profitability of forestry versus farming, and some
awareness-raising around what opportunities there are might be very
helpful, particularly, obviously, with incentives potentially
changing quite dramatically.
|
|
11:00
|
|
[133]
Jenny Rathbone:
Okay.
|
|
[134]
Mike Hedges: Thank you very much. We’re going to have to
move on. Jayne.
|
|
[135]
Jayne Bryant: Thank you, Chair. There have been a number of
concerns around the lack of young people involved in forestry
training and skills courses. I notice from your written evidence
that NRW take an enabling role in skills and development. Perhaps
you could expand a little bit more on what that actually
means.
|
|
[136] Ms van-Velzen: Okay. So, one way
that we’re involved is by trying to influence what Farming
and Forestry Connect can deliver through its knowledge programmes,
its use of demonstration sites and so forth. They are able to
reach—and they are funded to reach by Welsh
Government—many different types of landowners and managers.
And so we work closely with them on the development of their
programmes and delivery, but we also work very closely with the
Institute of Chartered Foresters, which, if people are members of
that institute, have continuing professional development at the
heart of everything they do. We work with them on offering field
trips that are relevant to the policy challenges in Wales, and that
brings a great deal of the younger generation into an environment
where they can continue to develop their skills and knowledge.
|
|
[137]
Jayne Bryant: So, do you think it is a problem or—. I think
in your evidence you said it was more of a perception, but would
you say that it’s a real challenge getting young people
involved in the opportunities?
|
|
[138] Ms van-Velzen: I think people
seeing it as an attractive vocation is potentially an issue.
|
|
[139]
Mr Garson: It’s a big problem for forestry contractors to
find people willing to come into the industry. It’s
physically hard work; there are easier ways of making a living.
However, there are things that can help. We’ve had a first
batch of apprentices through doing a trees and timber
apprenticeship scheme, and that’s been quite heavily
subscribed—you know, we had far more applicants than we were
able to take on. So, I think we have to find pathways for people to
come into the industry.
|
|
[140]
Jayne Bryant: So, are you looking to measure that, obviously, and
evaluate that in terms of, perhaps, the potential to expand on that
in the future with these courses or are there any plans to do that
at the moment?
|
|
[141]
Mr Garson: Well, I think the whole apprenticeships levy may
drive more organisations to offer apprenticeship opportunities. So,
our first batch of apprentices was a learning opportunity for us,
but I think that would be something that could be done far more in
the future.
|
|
[142]
Jayne Bryant: We also had some evidence about reviving the former
forest education programme of the Forestry Commission Wales. Are
there any plans to look into things like that—or any comments
on that?
|
|
[143]
Mr Garson: Well, we have reduced our involvement in the direct
delivery of forest education, but we have continued to help to
develop capacity to deliver it. So, you may be referring to the
Forest Schools programme, for example. So, we still support the
development of Forest Schools by training people to become Forest
Schools leaders, but we’re not resourced to be able to
provide direct delivery in the way that might have been commonplace
10 or 15 years ago. But we’ve retained that sort of
capacity-building role.
|
|
[144]
Jayne Bryant: Okay. I’d just like to move on then quickly to
community involvement. We had a great meeting—. The committee
went out to Maesteg recently with lots of very interested groups,
and we did hear some conflicting views regarding the support and
guidance for community woodland groups. Do you think more could be
done to guide the community woodland groups and, if you do, what
and how?
|
|
[145] Mr Garson: Yes,
I think guidance does help, so I think it is helpful to improve the
guidance and to give some case studies that give a bit of
inspiration. There is some work going on with Llais y Goedwig and
NRW to try to develop a better set of guidance, but it isn’t
just about the process. I think a lot of this is about the dialogue
that develops between the local community or group wanting to take
a project forward and the foresters managing that area of land. I
think the Maesteg project at Llynfi does demonstrate that, if you
put that time into developing a dialogue, you can get some
really great results, actually.
|
|
[146] Jayne
Bryant: I think I was very impressed, particularly with the
Spirit of Llynfi project, myself and I think it’s a great
example of what a new woodland can do to provide good practice and
real change in an area. I was just wondering how you can support
similar models in the future, getting that communication out and
the good practice to areas, and even to some groups perhaps that
wouldn’t be on the same scale as the Spirit of Llynfi, but
some smaller community groups that would be interested in some
aspects of what you’re doing. How can you get that message
out to them?
|
|
[147] Mr
Garson: There’s been quite a lot of analysis of
opportunities to create woodlands near communities, and the site at
Maesteg is one of a number of priority woodland locations that was
identified through a spatial exercise through the Heads of the
Valleys and Valleys Regional Park initiatives. So, there are other
sites that we think have got similar potential. It is quite an
expensive process to create a woodland, particularly on a
brownfield site. You’ve got soil conditions that need
substantial modification, drainage infrastructure, and you also
need to put the staff time into developing the design of the forest
in dialogue with the local community so that they’re getting
something that they value and will use. But, also, there have been
a number of other bodies that have played a very supportive role at
the Spirit of Llynfi, in particular bringing in things like the
health agenda there to try to make sure that that’s an asset
to improve community health. It is something that can be
replicated, and I think having an example of a project like that
can give some inspiration, but it will require a significant
resource in time, money and partnerships to replicate that level of
success.
|
|
[148] Mike
Hedges: Gareth, on environmental quality.
|
|
[149] Gareth
Bennett: Yes. Thank you, Chair. What do you see as the barriers
currently preventing woodland habitats on protected sites from
being in favourable condition, and how can these barriers be
overcome?
|
|
[150] Mr
Garson: Well, it takes time. I think that’s the first
thing I’d say. To get habitats into favourable conservation
status means you’ve really got to not only remove the threats
there, but they’ve actually then got to develop the
characteristics of the habitat into a good condition. So, if
we’re measuring success in terms of how long it takes to get
to favourable conservation status, which has a very defined
definition, time will be one factor. Obviously, we can get sites
into the favourable management regime, where they are moving in the
right direction sooner than that, but it does require some
sustained input of resources. So, if you take an area that might be
infested with rhododendron, there’s an initial intervention
and then there’s follow-up treatment there. If, then, the
rhododendron is eradicated, you then gradually get the
establishment of the structure that you would expect to see in that
habitat. Once those structural elements are in place, then
you’ve reached favourable conservation status. So, it might
take decades. We shouldn’t necessarily be disheartened by
that. We should be measuring the favourable management and whether
we are putting in the interventions that we need to get us to the
point where we are in favourable conservation status.
|
|
[151] Gareth
Bennett: There was a bit of conflicting opinion regarding
progress on restoring plantations on ancient woodland sites, so I
don’t know whether you had any opinions on that.
|
|
[152] Ms
van-Velzen: I think one of the barriers to that is, as Peter
said, particularly on the Welsh Government woodland estate, we have
a lot of sites that are part of much bigger sites—you know,
tens of thousands of hectares—and the woodland forms one part
of that. It’s predominantly removing coniferous canopy and
trying to get a more natural woodland there, which does take time,
as Peter said. But I think one of the barriers, particularly in
woodland in other ownership, is around the lack of Glastir woodland
management. We haven’t had a management scheme to try and
help people who own plantations and ancient woodland sites
elsewhere to get access to their woodlands, to build the
infrastructure they might need, to deal with some of the grazing
pressures, for fencing and so on, and link them in with the advice
and perhaps the tools that they need to be able to make those
interventions to improve the status. So, I think that that is
one—. There’s no obligation on people to have to
replant with native species if there’s no incentive to help
them do that and if economically it makes more sense to replant
with the more commercial species.
|
|
[153]
Mike Hedges: Okay.
|
|
[154] Ms
van-Velzen: Unless it’s on a protected site, in which
case there are other mechanisms to lever change.
|
|
[155]
Mike Hedges: Woodlands management area—.
|
|
[156]
David Melding: We’ve covered most of that.
|
|
[157]
Mike Hedges: I thought we had, yes.
|
|
[158]
David Melding: But, you do identify in your evidence that 40 per
cent of Wales’s woodland has little or no management. Should
all woodland be managed to some degree? Is that the ideal? Because,
we don’t have vast areas of virgin forest—you know,
stretched across Siberia or whatever—so should we be aiming
for an approach that ensures there’s at least a basic level
of management for all our woodlands?
|
|
[159] Ms
van-Velzen: Not necessarily. Again, it’s horses for
courses. There’s a spectrum—
|
|
[160] David
Melding: Well, 40 per cent is too high, presumably, which is
why it’s in your evidence, so give us an alternative
benchmark.
|
|
[161] Mr
Garson: I think, as Michelle was saying, management can vary in
its intensity, so we could have very light interventions in an area
where the objectives don’t require intensive management.
There is a potential resource in woodlands that have little or no
management at the moment that could play a greater role, but to
bring those woodlands into more active management will take some
resource, and I think that is a range of things, really. Some of it
is around advice and making sure that—
|
|
[162] David
Melding: I’m still not getting any sense if 40 per cent
is a problem or inevitable.
|
|
[163] Mr
Garson: It’s a missed opportunity. I think that we should
be able to get more out of those woodlands in a variety of ways if
they were more actively managed, but it needs some advice to
owners, and also we don’t currently have a grant scheme that
funds intervention—
|
|
[164] David
Melding: Yes, that’s a key area, obviously.
|
|
[165] Mr
Garson: So, a lot of these sites are inaccessible; they
don’t have tracks, so you need some initial investment to
make them viable to manage.
|
|
[166] David
Melding: Thank you.
|
|
[167]
Mike Hedges: We’ve got two minutes left, and I know at least
two people want to ask questions on trees in and near urban areas.
Do you want to go first, Jayne? Jenny—sorry. I’ve got
you both down.
|
|
[168]
Jenny Rathbone:
I’m particularly concerned about a
figure that new housing developments on average only have 1 per
cent tree cover, and I just wondered what your regulatory role is
to ensure that planning committees are setting very clear
guidelines to housing developers that they must plant trees as part
of the planning grant.
|
|
[169] Ms
van-Velzen: I’m not sure we’re able to actually
stipulate that they do so—plant new woodland. I guess that
could be in the palette of things that could be recommended. There
is certainly scope for protecting existing trees within a
development, and I think we take every opportunity to do that. One
area—
|
|
[170]
Jenny Rathbone:
So, when existing trees are knocked down
in order to make way for housing, you have powers to insist that
they replace them, or you rely on councils to—
|
|
[171] Ms
van-Velzen: No. Within Woodlands for Wales, there is a desire
in the policy—an ambition—to have compensatory new
planting for trees that are lost, but there is actually no policy
or legislation around that, unless it’s to do with ancient
woodland.
|
|
[172]
Jenny Rathbone:
Well, you can be certain that house
builders won’t do it unless they’re required to do it.
What’s your role in ensuring that—
|
|
[173] Ms
van-Velzen: Well, that’s one of the recommendations
we’re making in terms of that ‘Taking Wales
Forward’ consultation that Welsh Government have out at the
moment—that we take the opportunity within that to seek
permanent woodland removal policy where it’s desirable to
remove woodland, but then also think about the circular aspect of
that to create new woodland and lever in funds to replace it
somewhere else.
|
|
[174]
Jenny Rathbone:
But do you think there’s a need for
an overhaul of the planning legislation to ensure that new
developments are sustainable in the sense that trees play,
obviously, a very important role in providing natural shade and
protection?
|
|
[175] Mr Garson: We
have undertaken a canopy cover survey to assess woodland cover in
urban areas across Wales. We think that would be very helpful to
inform local authorities. I think, through public service boards,
we’ll be able to highlight the roles of trees in urban areas
and the opportunities there would be to incorporate more trees into
urban design. But, we don’t have a strict regulatory role,
because most of those developments—you referred to housing
developments—would go through the planning system;
they don’t come to us as forestry regulations. So, it’s
more around encouraging and informing. So, the canopy cover study
is very helpful.
|
|
11:15
|
|
[176] Ms
van-Velzen: Most recently, we’ve worked particularly with
Wrexham, Bridgend and the Towy area catchments to produce a toolkit
called i-Tree Eco with the local authorities to help them develop
their local tree management strategies, and we’ve identified
locations where it would be highly beneficial. There’s a
great example in Greener Grangetown where trees have been part of
that collaborative work with Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water.
|
|
[177]
Jenny Rathbone:
But we need Greener Grangetown to be
adopted all over the place, but you’re not being listened to
by planning authorities at the moment.
|
|
[178]
Mr Garson: Some.
|
|
[179]
Jenny Rathbone:
Some. Good in parts. Okay.
|
|
[180]
Mike Hedges: We’ve come to the end of time. If I can ask one
last question on this. As people will get to know, most of my
examples start off within Swansea East, and in Swansea East,
we’ve had quite a fairly large-scale development, and what
actually happens is: trees are chopped down, bushes are removed and
then we have decking and concrete, and then we have extra water
run-off that can lead to flooding, and often does, or it leads to
the river getting higher so remedial action has to be taken by
another part of your organisation on river flooding. Have you
suggested to anybody that a one-for-one tree replacement, so when
trees are taken down—following on from what Jenny was
asking—as part of a development, when they complete the
development they put trees back up?
|
|
[181]
Ms van-Velzen: Yes. [Laughter.] That principle is something we
recommend, yes.
|
|
[182]
Mike Hedges: Who do you recommend it to?
|
|
[183]
Ms van-Velzen: Well, within our advisory roles, to local planning
authorities.
|
|
[184]
Mike Hedges: And they don’t listen.
|
|
[185]
Ms van-Velzen: Not always, and it doesn’t necessarily—.
There isn’t necessarily the legislative basis to do so. I
think that’s one of the opportunities that can be seized
on.
|
|
[186]
Mike Hedges: It can be a planning condition, though, if planning
authorities want to make it, or it could be a section 106. So,
planning committees—another former councillor there is
nodding—have huge powers under section 106 and when they give
the planning permission to say, ‘And you must
do—’.
|
|
[187]
Mr Garson: There’s quite a lot of technical guidance
around sustainable drainage. So, trees aren’t the only way of
mitigating flood risk in a development, but they are an important
component.
|
|
[188]
Mike Hedges: I’ll just thank you for coming, and end this
with a comment: taking trees out doesn’t help flooding. Thank
you very much. Thank you for coming along. And I’ve got to
tell you that you will have a transcript of what’s said here
at the meeting, which you can check before it’s published.
Thank you very much.
|
|
[189]
Ms van-Velzen: Thank you.
|
|
[190]
Mr Garson: Diolch yn fawr.
|
|
[191]
Mike Hedges: Shall we have a break until half past?
|
|
Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 11:18 a 11:30.
The meeting adjourned between 11:18 and 11:30.
|
|
Ymchwiliad i Bolisi Coedwigaeth a Choetiroedd yng
Nghymru:
Sesiwn Tystiolaeth Lafar gyda Llywodraeth Cymru
Inquiry into Forestry and Woodland Policy in Wales:
Oral Evidence Session with Welsh Government
|
|
[192] Mike
Hedges: Can I welcome you to this committee meeting? Can you
and your officials give your names for the record?
|
|
[193] The Cabinet
Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs (Lesley Griffiths):
Lesley Griffiths, Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural
Affairs.
|
|
[194] Mr Lea:
Chris Lea, deputy director for land, nature and forestry division,
Welsh Government.
|
|
[195] Mr
MacDonald: Bill MacDonald, team leader for the forest resources
policy team.
|
|
[196] Mike
Hedges: Thank you very much. If I can perhaps ask the first
question. What’s your response to calls from stakeholders,
including Natural Resources Wales, for the ‘Woodlands for
Wales’ strategy to be refreshed, and do you intend to refresh
this strategy?
|
|
[197] Lesley
Griffiths: I suppose the short answer is ‘yes’. I
think it is very likely that I will refresh it. Following the
publication of the natural resources policy, it’s my
intention to look—. Whether it will be later this year, or
early next year, I haven’t yet decided.
|
|
[198] Mike
Hedges: Okay, thank you. Let’s hope we can keep on going
with the ‘yeses’. [Laughter.] How does the Welsh
Government’s current consultation on the sustainability and
management of natural resources link with the forthcoming natural
resources policy, and when will the natural resources policy be
published?
|
|
[199] Lesley
Griffiths: Okay. Colleagues will be aware that I delayed the
publication of NRP. It should have been published by the end of
March. We had a significant number of responses, probably far more
than we anticipated, and, of course, we also have had Brexit. So, I
decided to delay it. I want to get it right. However, it’s
more or less there; it’s nearly ready to go. My officials are
doing the sort of final round, if you like, with stakeholders. I
had my ministerial Brexit stakeholder event on Monday, where we had
a discussion around this. So, I would say it’s nearly ready
to go.
|
|
[200] How does the
sustainable management of natural resources consultation fit in? I
suppose it was always envisaged that, even though we’ve got
the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the
Environment (Wales) Act 2016, we could need more legislation. So,
my plans around the sustainable management of natural resources was
to get the views of stakeholders, harness their thoughts around
green growth et cetera, but obviously, with Brexit—you
don’t want to say it’s the only show in town, but,
unfortunately, it’s changed the landscape of so much of my
portfolio. So, the two will obviously link together.
|
|
[201] Mike
Hedges: Thank you very much. Huw on regulations.
|
|
[202] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Chair. Cabinet Secretary, you
mentioned there the sustainable management of natural resources
consultation going on at the moment, which has a lot within it.
Before I get to the issue of regulation that you want to focus on,
can I just ask you: do you anticipate that what comes out of that
may close the gap between your ambitions for woodland creation and
where we actually are at the moment? And it’s not only a
Wales issue, it’s a UK-wide issue. But there is that gap. Are
you hoping that ideas come forward in that—that that shapes a
different direction that closes that gap between ambition and
reality?
|
|
[203] Lesley
Griffiths: You’re right, there is a big gap between
ambition and reality. And, of course, you’ve got to have
ambitious targets, but I’ve always been a Minister
who’s absolutely thought, ‘You’ve got to have
realistic targets’, otherwise you’re just setting
yourself up to fail straight away. However, you need that
challenge, and we need to give that challenge to the sector and
officials and the stakeholders.
|
|
[204] It’s
interesting, before I came here, I met with several groups of women
in agriculture, for want of a better phrase. And I was saying, I
suppose because I’ve been focusing on committee today, and
other things around forestry, that I think we’ve got to look
for opportunities post Brexit, and one of them is trees. I think
trees will play a much bigger part post Brexit. And these women
were saying to me, ‘We don’t want to come to you with
problems, we want to come with solutions.’ So, I had a little
discussion with them around the culture, if you like, of some
farmers who don’t feel that they want to plant trees, and why
that is—and I’m saying ‘some’, not all,
obviously, because we’ve got some fantastic example of tree
planting. So, it would be good if we could have some solutions
around forestry. And, certainly, people
recognise that, if we are going to reach our very ambitious target
by 2030, we’re going to have to be radically
different.
|
|
[205]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Okay. I’m sure other colleagues
will want to come back on that future use of public funds, and
whatever, post Brexit, which we hinted at in our previous report.
Can I turn to the issue of regulation—one of those possible
barriers? We have had evidence, not least from the commercial
sector, that they regard the regulatory structures in Wales as more
onerous than, particularly, exist in Scotland. Are you refreshing
that, are you looking at that, do you take those concerns
seriously, or are they simply whingeing from the commercial
sector?
|
|
[206]
Lesley Griffiths:
I do take them seriously. You’re
always going to get tension between regulation and regulator. This
is how serious I take them: two weeks ago, there was myself, a
member of the commercial sector, a representative from NRW, and one
of my officials in a room, because I said, ‘You know, you
keep telling me that we’re not planting enough trees,
it’s their fault; you keep telling me it’s their fault.
Or, when we are planting trees, we’re not planting them in
the right places.’ So, I said, ‘Right, you tell me
together where we should be planting them et cetera, et
cetera.’ So, that’s how seriously I’m taking it.
I am trying to find a way forward, because we know we need to plant
more trees. So, there are clearly barriers—whether those
barriers are perceived, or whether they’re real, it
doesn’t matter, because, if it’s perception, then we
need to deal with it. I think NRW and the commercial sector need to
work much more closely together on this, and that was one of the
reasons for getting everybody in the room. I then left—I let
them carry on after I left. And there is the promise that that will
continue.
|
|
[207]
I don’t think it’s any more
onerous in Wales than anywhere else, but, again, I’m happy to
look at it. I don’t know if Chris has any views
on—.
|
|
[208]
Mr Lea: Just to add, we’re also looking at this now,
before the end of the year, to see how we can look at innovation in
the use of regulation within the forestry sector, on the back of
the environmental impact assessment. And also, we’re looking
at lessons learnt from the EIA scheme we operate for biodiversity
as well. Because, obviously, there is an EIA for agriculture and in
biodiversity, so we’re looking at lessons learnt from the
two. So, there’s a project going on on that, which
we’ll report back to our Cabinet Secretary, early in
2018.
|
|
[209]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Well, that’s really helpful,
because that would suggest that you think there may indeed be areas
for improvement in the EIA process generally. But in terms of this
inquiry, in terms of woodland as well, the fact that you’re
looking at a review of what’s going on, and ways you can do
it smarter, suggest that you have an idea you can do it
smarter.
|
|
[210]
Mr Lea: Well, I mean, I think it’s important that we
always look to improve. I mean, we’ve got some examples of
one of the largest areas of woodland that’s been planted in
Wales—I think it was something in the region of 400 or 500
acres of land; a massive area of land that has been
planted—and that went through fine, we didn’t have any
problems. But we recognise we do need to look at what’s best
fit, what is the best possible regulation that we can have, in
terms of enabling, and we’re looking at lessons learnt from
that.
|
|
[211]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Okay.
|
|
[212]
Mike Hedges: Sian.
|
|
[213]
Sian
Gwenllian: Diolch. Rydw i eisiau sôn am—rydych chi wedi
cyffwrdd â hyn yn barod—y posibiliadau y gall ffermwyr
gyfrannu tuag at y nod yma o gael mwy o goed. Ac, ar hyn o bryd,
mae yna arian ar gael drwy rai o’r cynlluniau Glastir,
ond—mae yna ‘ond’, onid oes, bob tro rydym
ni’n sôn am Glastir, mae yna ryw ‘ond’ yn
dod i mewn i’r cwestiwn rywsut? Beth ydy’r gwersi sydd
wedi cael eu dysgu o’r cynlluniau Glastir
presennol?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Thank you. I want
to mention—well, you’ve touched on this
already—the possibilities that farmers could contribute
towards the aim of having more trees. And, at present, there is
money available through some of the Glastir schemes,
but—there is always a ‘but’, isn’t there,
every time we talk about Glastir there’s always a
‘but’ in the equation somehow? What are the lessons
that have been learned from the Glastir schemes at
present?
|
|
[214]
Lesley Griffiths:
Diolch. I know when my predecessor, Carl
Sargeant—he didn’t get rid of that very ambitious
target that I referred to earlier, but he did sort of change it to
looking at 2,000 hectares being delivered a year, as opposed to
5,000, which was what the first target equated to. And I think
I’m right—and officials will tell me if I’m
wrong—I think it was 1,000 would come from
Glastir—
|
|
[215]
Mr MacDonald: Yes, that’s right, Minister.
|
|
[216]
Lesley Griffiths:
And that hasn’t happened. And I
think, perhaps—
|
|
[217]
Sian Gwenllian:
Why?
|
|
[218] Lesley Griffiths: Yes, why—that’s a very good question:
why? I think it was never going to meet—. I don’t think
Glastir on its own was ever going to be enough to meet that
challenge of 1,000. So, what we’re doing at the moment is
looking at if there is a different way of using the funding to
encourage tree growing. So, I’ll go back to the women who I
was talking to this morning, and one of the issues is that
it’s such a long-term commitment. They were saying,
‘You don’t get any payback’, and, obviously, for
some farms, that immediate payback is very important. Because I did
say I would look at maybe—. The Glastir woodland scheme had
been looked at, but we haven’t opened a window around
that—would it be worth doing that? So, we need to look at why
it hasn’t worked to see if there is any other way that we can
make it work within Glastir.
|
|
[219] I know officials
are meeting next week to look at future funding schemes post
Brexit, and this is why I say I think there are a lot of
opportunities post Brexit for trees to play a very different part.
So, it could be that we don’t have to wait until post
Brexit—if we get some good ideas that come forward now, we
could look at doing that.
|
|
[220] We also need to
look at innovative ways that farmers can get a regular income from
woodland. So, a couple of weeks ago—I think it was two weeks
today, or three weeks today—Chris and I were in Llanrwst. In
fact, you might know the farm. We visited a very large farm where
85,000 trees had been planted since March, and the farmer was very
prepared to be innovative and wait for that long-term investment.
But we haven’t had too many coming forward, I think
it’s safe to say, around that.
|
|
[221] Mr Lea:
No. I think that what we have to remember is that we haven’t
had a mass of schemes waiting to fund. One thing that the Minister,
the Cab Sec, has done is actually look at changing Farming Connect
a bit so that the advisory network to support farmers actually
covers foresters better than it used to, so that, rather than it
being just purely farming matters, it’s got more of a depth
to covering some of the skills and the forestry stuff. I think
there’s a bit more we can do there as well to help create
that culture. Also, more farmers are coming forward and we’re
looking at this as well in terms of looking at smaller areas of
land. So, we’re trying to look at the whole farm and then try
and get better advice that encourages farmers not just to produce
commodities, but to actually look at small areas of land, which
will help.
|
|
[222] Lesley
Griffiths: One barrier that farmers have mentioned to me is
they feel that, once you plant woodland, people think it’s
got to be woodland for ever, and they want that flexibility for it
not to be woodland for ever. If they want to use it for something
else and they wouldn’t be able to do it, I think that could
be a barrier.
|
|
[223] Simon
Thomas: Just on that point, if I may, because that’s
precisely where current CAP is going wrong, isn’t it? And
some of the other issues around CAP, around canopy, around tree
coverage, and your clear spaces are thwarting a more integrated
approach. I just wanted to ask on that—acknowledging those
problems, which I think you do by nodding your head—is that
giving a cultural difficulty, in that farmers, therefore, because
of the difficulties with the single farm payment and CAP and other
payments, don’t engage in woodland because they have this
concept that it’s a very bureaucratic and nightmarish
approach, really, and therefore it’s only the—?
You’ve given a very good example, but they are extreme
examples—or ‘rare’ is a better word.
|
|
[224] Lesley
Griffiths: I tried very hard not to use the word
‘culture’ when I was answering earlier, but I think,
yes, you’re right, and I don’t think anyone would
disagree that there is a culture amongst some farmers that they
don’t want to do it for the variety of reasons that
you’ve just said. So, that’s why I’m saying about
opportunity post Brexit, really, as we’re looking at how we
give farmers financial support, how we change it, and that’s
why I say I think trees will play a much bigger part.
|
|
[225]
Sian Gwenllian:
A ydych chi wedi dechrau? Mae’r
trafodaethau ar ba fath o bolisïau, pa fath o gynlluniau, sydd
yn mynd i fod yn bosibl o dan y gyfundrefn newydd, a ydy hynny wedi
dechrau, achos mae’n bwysig ei fod o’n dechrau yn
ddigon buan, onid ydy? A ydych chi hefyd angen arian? Rydw
i’n meddwl eich bod chi wedi dweud yn eich
tystiolaeth:
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Have you started? The discussions in terms of what
kind of policies and schemes are going to be possible under the new
system, have they started, because it’s important that they
start soon enough, isn’t it? Do you also need funding? I
think that you said in your evidence:
|
|
[226]
‘Mae anelu at blannu mwy o goed
yng Nghymru yn debygol o olygu y bydd angen mwy o arian arnon
ni’.
|
‘Raising
the level of ambition in respect of tree planting in Wales is
likely to require additional funding’.
|
|
[227]
A ydy hwnnw’n beth realistig, i
feddwl bod yna arian ar gael i’r maes yna?
|
Is that a
realistic thing, to think that there will be funding available in
this area?
|
|
[228] Lesley
Griffiths: Going back on to discussions, I mentioned that
officials are meeting next week. We’ve already started as a
department—those Brexit discussions started probably on 24
June. So, we’re doing a lot of scenario setting—right
across the portfolio, not just in relation to forestry—about
our future policies. We had a really good session a week last
Monday, myself and all the senior team, about all the different
aspects of this. So, those discussions, I can assure Members, have
started, and, as I said, if there is something that comes up next
week that we think we can implement earlier to get more trees
planted, I’m very happy to look at it.
|
|
11:45
|
|
[229] In relation to
more funding, obviously, funding is about—. You know,
there’s no point pretending that there’s lots of
funding around; we’re all aware there isn’t. I
don’t think it’s the biggest barrier to planting more
trees. I think probably land use and the cost of land are two of
them. However—. And we can’t do it on our own. Welsh
Government can’t do it on our own. We need everybody working
together, but, certainly, post Brexit, I think we can make sure
there is more funding available from whatever. At the moment, we
haven’t got anything at all. It’s a black hole, as you
know. So, on the basis that there will always be financial support
for farmers, we can certainly look at that. As I said, I’ve
committed all the rural development programme funding up until
2020, however there are windows that I can still open, so we could
look at that.
|
|
[230] Mr Lea:
Just to add, the other thing the Cabinet Secretary’s asked us
to look at is innovation in funding, so use of lottery, use of
taxation, some really innovative stuff that we’re going to
try and look at as well, linked back to carbon credits and other
things as well.
|
|
[231] Lesley
Griffiths: I mentioned we can’t do it on our own.
I’m assuming, when you mentioned the largest woodland
that’s been recently planted, that was the voluntary sector.
Is that the one you were referring to?
|
|
[232] Mr Lea:
Yes, exactly. The voluntary sector bought the land.
|
|
[233] Lesley
Griffiths: They bought the land—a charity bought the land
themselves and planted the trees. So, it just shows it’s
about everybody working together, not just relying on us.
|
|
[234] Mike
Hedges: Huw’s got a supplementary on this.
|
|
[235] Huw
Irranca-Davies: You mentioned carbon credits and so on. Has any
thought been given in that innovative funding to looking at whether
there is a Welsh-specific, Welsh-targeted pool of carbon credits
that could align with changes that might be made with Glastir or
with rural development programmes that would actually really
incentivise farmers/landowners to think, ‘Well, actually,
this is worth doing, because we’re getting a little bit a of
grant funding. We’re getting some buy-in here from major
Welsh or UK corporate players’? Is that the sort of thinking
you’re rolling on?
|
|
[236] Mr Lea:
That is exactly it. What we’re looking at is innovation in
the delivery of public goods through whatever a new post-Brexit
land management becomes, so not just looking at the role of tree
planting in carbon, but trees in water, trees in biodiversity, and
the wider suite of public goods that they provide.
|
|
[237] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Sorry, Chair, because my observation would be:
are you considering that there might be a specific advantage for
Wales if there is an identifiable—not just a strategy, but a
well-thought-through mechanism that was Wales-specific—? It
could actually attract some of that wider investment into Wales to
help push this along.
|
|
[238] Mr Lea:
Yes. Those are exactly the sort of options that we’ll be
looking at.
|
|
[239] Huw
Irranca-Davies: And your timescale.
|
|
[240] Mr Lea: I
don’t think we’ve actually set a timescale as yet, but
the work has started on it. I’m not sure whether we’ve
got an end date for that yet.
|
|
[241] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Okay.
|
|
[242] Mike
Hedges: Sian.
|
|
[243]
Sian Gwenllian:
Troi at y map cyfleoedd creu coetir
Glastir, a ydych chi’n credu bod y map yn effeithiol fel y
mae o ar hyn o bryd, a beth sydd angen i wneud i’w wella
fo?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Turning to the Glastir woodland opportunities map,
do you think that the map is effective as it is at present, and
what needs to be done to improve it?
|
|
[244] Lesley
Griffiths: Yes, I do think it’s effective, because what
it does is highlight potential woodland plants to them, where the
most appropriate areas for woodland creation are right across
Wales. So, I think it enables—. If it’s viewed at a
strategic level, I think it enables our priorities then to be
recognised, so, for instance, where we need more trees in relation
to air pollution. So, again, it’s about joining up other
parts of my portfolio, in relation to planning policy, for
instance. So, where we’ve got new roads or new housing
developments, it’s about making sure that planters know that
the trees can be put there, too. It’s now on its fourth
iteration, so, again, it’s refreshed often. So, when we get
new data available, if it’s deemed that at that time it
should be refreshed, we do that. I don’t think there’s
one size fits all; all the sites are different. I think it’s
a decision support tool, not a decision-making tool, if you like,
but I do think it’s very beneficial.
|
|
[245]
Sian Gwenllian:
Mae hwnnw’n groes i beth mae
rhai pobl wedi bod yn ei ddweud wrthym ni. Hynny yw, mae rhai pobl
yn dweud bod y map, mewn ffordd, yn cynnwys mwy o resymau dros
blannu coed yn hytrach na’r rhesymau dros beidio â
phlannu coed. Beth ydy eich ymateb chi i hynny?
|
Sian Gwenllian: That’s
different to what some people have told us. That is, some people
say that the map, in a way, includes more reasons for planting
trees rather than reasons for not planting them. What is your
response to that?
|
|
[246] Lesley Griffiths: Sorry, gives more
reasons for planting—.
|
|
[247] Sian
Gwenllian: Yes. That it should, sorry.
|
|
[248] Lesley
Griffiths; Oh, it should. Sorry. That it should. Yes, it
should. That’s exactly what it does. So, they’re saying
that it doesn’t—
|
|
[249] Sian
Gwenllian: That it’s acting as a bit of a deterrent,
really, rather than—
|
|
[250] Lesley
Griffiths: As an another barrier. Okay.
|
|
[251] Mr Lea:
Just to add, I think one of the challenges is that some of the
areas that are really attractive to plant woodland are also really
attractive to manage our peatland or are really attractive for our
wetland management and habitat, so it’s getting the balance
between those areas.
|
|
[252] Lesley Griffiths: What I thought it
did, and I can honestly say nobody’s raised it with me as a
barrier, is that it did provide that further information that land
managers needed to plant trees. So, if they’re saying the
complete opposite—
|
|
[253]
Sian Gwenllian:
Tilhill Forestry and Confor and Bangor
University have said that it’s a good beginning, but that it
should be more proactive in favour of planting more trees, that
it’s not actually doing that.
|
|
[254]
Lesley Griffiths:
Okay, well, I will certainly take that
up, because—. I’ll ask officials if anybody’s
raised it with them.
|
|
[255]
Mr Lea: It is a work in progress. Bill, you might want to say
where we are. We are updating it now and trying to make it more
user friendly. We’re trying to improve all the data layers
within it. I don’t know if you want to add
anything.
|
|
[256]
Mr MacDonald: We do update the map, as the Minister has said,
regularly, and we do try to make sure it delivers the two aims that
it has, one of which is to highlight the places where tree planting
would be the most beneficial. The other is to give the information
that those who are planning tree planting need in order to do that
planning properly and to understand the constraints that there may
be. If they’re going to be planting trees on top of a really
important habitat, they need to know that so they can avoid
important habitats. That’s the aim of the map. I think,
sometimes, people look at it and see all of the issues and
constraints and see that as a barrier. It’s not intended to
be a barrier, but the reality is there are a lot of things that
need to be protected in Wales, and that’s the function of the
map: to highlight those as well as the opportunities.
|
|
[257]
Lesley Griffiths:
I do meet with Confor regularly. I think
I meet with them twice a year as a part of the sector, but also,
obviously, they sit on the Brexit stakeholder board, so I’ll
certainly take that issue up with them, and I’m happy to
provide further information to the committee, Chair.
|
|
[258]
Mike Hedges: Thank you. Thank you. David—woodland
strategy.
|
|
[259]
David Melding: Thank you, Chair. I’d just like to ask about
the woodland strategy advisory panel. Now, we heard from NRW that
it ought to be revitalised and made more dynamic. We’ve heard
from stakeholders who are not on it—you know, environmental
and recreational ones—that they should be on it, and
we’ve heard from Confor that we shouldn’t view it as a
strategic panel at all; it’s all about liaison between the
Government and the commercial sector. Now, obviously there’s
a huge range there, so what on earth is it for?
|
|
[260]
Lesley Griffiths:
It’s an advisory panel to me. I
think it’s a very good panel. It’s gender balanced,
which always pleases me. I suppose you can’t please all the
people all the time, can you? But I would say their main purpose is
as an advisory panel to me. I think there’s a very broad
range of skills on there—a good mixture. We can
always—. If I want advice, I can always go outside that
panel. So, again, I meet all my stakeholders. Environmental
representatives sit on a variety of panels, so they can always feed
in to me about that, but these people give their time, so I
don’t like to hear that they should be revitalised. I think
it’s a very good panel.
|
|
[261]
David Melding: So, it’s functioning well at the moment, in
your view, and giving you a range of, well, strategic advice.
It’s in the name, so one would hope that
that’s—.
|
|
[262]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes, they give me advice around economic
benefits, environmental, obviously. I’ve got no criticism at
all.
|
|
[263]
David Melding: So, to try and be specific, what sort of advice have
they been giving around how policy ought to be shaped in the future
with the use of the well-being of future generations Act, which is
obviously core to the Government’s strategy in this whole
area?
|
|
[264]
Lesley Griffiths:
On the legislation, I’ve mentioned
already that a lot of this has to fit in, obviously, with the
well-being of future generations Act, how I want to link it in with
planning policy much more—I think that was one of the things
they advised me on. They’re advising me on Brexit
now—on our plans post Brexit. I’m trying to think what
else. Is there anything else—
|
|
[265]
Mr Lea: One of the other things, going back to your earlier
question about land use and planting more trees—. Because we
said that they’re going to be doing a session—I think
it’s 20 July—later on this month, looking at what we
can do, what’s innovative, in tree planting. It has got a
good balance of public, private and voluntary. They’re
helping us to do further work on health. We actually went out to
visit some of the work that they’d actually suggested we look
at, looking at using woodlands as gyms, so actually getting people
out there in the woodlands. So, it’s a whole range of areas
that they’re covering.
|
|
[266]
Lesley Griffiths:
Bill’s just reminded me that,
actually, today, they’re looking at the management of grey
squirrels for me.
|
|
[267] David
Melding: I mean, it sounds descriptive rather than strategic,
if I can be terribly direct. How are they using the future
generations Act to map out and consider future priorities and
options? My understanding is that’s why the Act exists: so
that you can have intergenerational policy making for long-term
targets, and crikey, this is certainly an area that requires that
sort of approach.
|
|
[268] Mr Lea:
In a sense, I think it’s also the way that officials use
them. That’s what we’re also doing with them now:
we’re actually giving them bespoke questions. In fact, I
think Bill, after this meeting, is meeting with the chair or having
a telecon with the chair to look at some of the key questions that
we actually want them to address now. So, they are very able, very
willing, they have a wealth of expertise and they will be
performing a major role now in helping us looking at woodland
options across the board within the context of all the
legislation.
|
|
[269] David
Melding: Well, let me try and push you towards the specifics.
In terms of woodland coverage by the latter part of the
twenty-first century, would they be looking at that and where our
current targets are, whether we should have new ones and be setting
that sort of policy ambition, or is that not what the FGA is being
used for at the moment?
|
|
[270] Mr Lea:
Yes, exactly that. That is something we want them to focus on now:
looking at the planting targets, looking at innovation and how we
fund it as well, and, across the board, looking at the other areas
of the sector, looking at construction and the links to industry,
and looking at capacity. That’s what they are there to
do.
|
|
[271] Lesley
Griffiths: One of their current pieces of work—and I did
refer to this earlier—is, obviously: we’re considering
ways of increasing woodland creation, so they’re meeting next
week particularly in the post-Brexit sphere and it’s about
how we design future funding schemes. So, going back, I think I
mentioned it in my answer to Sian, but I didn’t say it was
actually the panel that’s meeting next week.
|
|
[272] David
Melding: And so that I can understand the general scope of
their strategic planning work, do they look at other jurisdictions?
I mean, I suppose, in the UK, Scotland is probably the most
integrated and successful, although there are limits to the
progress they’ve been making against the targets that were
set getting on for a generation ago. But, you know, some countries
in Europe have made huge strides in terms of where they’ve
gotten to now compared to where they were in the early
1990s—Spain and France fairly close by, for instance, but
there are others. So, do they look at that sort of evidence, and
particularly the interventions that have enabled that sort of
progress around payments, usually, now they’ve adapted the
CAP to meet those sorts of requirements for forestation?
|
|
[273] Lesley
Griffiths: I know they certainly have looked at Scotland and
worked with Scotland, and obviously officials work closely with
Scotland. I don’t know about Spain and France, I’m
afraid. I don’t know if you know.
|
|
[274] Mr Lea: I
don’t think we’ve looked at France—
|
|
[275] David
Melding: Well, you know, I don’t mind where they’ve
looked, but have they looked wider afield?
|
|
[276] Lesley
Griffiths: They’ve looked wider; I know that.
|
|
[277] Mr Lea:
And it’s within their brief, as part of the work the Minister
had mentioned earlier with Brexit and looking at international
opportunities for forestry. That’s what they—
|
|
[278] Lesley
Griffiths: Outside of Europe.
|
|
[279] David
Melding: Okay. I don’t know if any of this evidence is
ever made public, or the minutes of their discussions, but some of
that would be very useful, I think, for the committee to see the
scope of these discussions. I’m a bit unclear; are there
plans to reappoint the panel or is the existing panel there and
you—on occasions, then—change membership as required,
or is there going to be a comprehensive reappointment of the
panel?
|
|
[280] Lesley
Griffiths: There’s just been one. I think it was earlier
this year. They started in March this year, and it’s for
three years.
|
|
[281] David
Melding: Thank you.
|
|
[282] Mike
Hedges: Thank you. On to commercial forestry. Jenny can
start.
|
|
[283] Jenny
Rathbone: Thank you. It’s good to hear you say, Cabinet
Secretary, that we need to be radically different, because if we
listen to the commercial sawmill sector, they are reporting that
we’re going to run out of commercial timber within 10 years.
So, clearly, previous governments haven’t paid attention to
this because it’s somewhere between 25 to 40 years to grow
commercial product. So, I just wondered what you thought were the
main drivers for trying to rectify this situation now.
|
|
12:00
|
|
[284]
NRW were fairly clear with us that, while
they have commercial forestry, they’re selling it in order to
use the proceeds for other duties, like management of woodland for
recreational purposes, more flood mitigation or whatever. They have
lots of duties, but there appears to be no ambition to continue to
be a grower of commercial trees. But, clearly, that’s not a
sustainable policy because, eventually, all their commercial
woodland will have gone and, therefore, they won’t have that
income. So, what are going to be the drivers now, in your view, to
rectify the lack of planting that’s gone on over many
years?
|
|
[285]
Lesley Griffiths:
I mentioned that we’ve got to be
radically different. If you look at the target that was set in 2010
for 20 years of 100,000 hectares, we are nowhere near that, and I
absolutely think we should keep that target there, although
it’s incredibly ambitious and it’s an aspiration. But
if we accept that climate change is probably the biggest threat
that we’re facing then we’ve absolutely got to keep to
that. So, whilst I want to keep that target, as I say, you’ve
got to be pragmatic, and that’s why we have to do something
radically different because, in the last seven years, we’ve
planted—I don’t know—not 4,000 hectares of trees.
So, it’s going back to what I was saying before about
partnership: it’s not just down to us, it’s not just
down to the sector, it’s not just down to NRW; we’ve
all got to work together.
|
|
[286]
Somebody mentioned Scotland before and,
again, Scotland are not reaching their very ambitious targets.
They’ve increased their targets, though, I think, and
I’ve had discussions with Fergus Ewing about this. He has a
particular interest, I would say, in forestry. That’s why he
wants to lay down that challenge of an increase.
|
|
[287]
So, you’re absolutely right about
the commercial sector. One of the things we’ve done is to
look at the way we fund. I go back to what I said before about
Glastir not doing what it should do. We’ve had the timber
business investment scheme; that’s been very successful.
We’ve had two rounds to date. Round 1 attracted 49
expressions of interest and 21 went through to the detailed
assessment stage, and that was a £2 million budget. Round 2
has just closed. We’ve had 46 expressions of interest. Again,
that’s a £2 million budget. We’ve also brought
forward the co-operative forest planning scheme. I’m very
keen on that because what that’s intended to do is fund from
the bottom up—have a really different approach, if you like.
So, again, we’ve got woodland managers working with
stakeholders to seek agreement about where woodland can be created.
That was launched in November last year. Again, it was an initial
allocation of £180,000—not a significant amount of
money but just enough to kick-start it. I am looking to see if I
can do another couple of rounds there. I really want to encourage
an increase in home-grown timber.
|
|
[288]
Jenny Rathbone:
Okay, well, that’s excellent to
hear. Might it be useful to do case studies of the Llanrwst farmer
who’s planted 85,000 trees or the 400 to 500 acres you say
have been planted somewhere else? Because the commercial sector is
saying that, in Wales, you have to invest £150,000 to
£300,000 in an application for commercial woodland with
little prospect of it being agreed—that there’s a much
less enthusiastic embracing of commercial woodland than there is in
Scotland, so that they’ve all defected to Scotland. So, what
can we learn from the Scottish situation to try to retrieve
that?
|
|
[289]
Lesley Griffiths:
What I was saying was that I want to see
an increase in the use of home-grown timber because I want to see
the use of timber in construction. So, one of the things I’m
doing—you mention case studies—is meeting with
Woodknowledge Wales and also the Structural Timber Association at
the Royal Welsh Show. So, Huw, the farmer I met up in
Llanrwst—I’ve asked if he’s coming along to the
Royal Welsh. It would be really good for people to hear his
experience, because he was so positive about it, and you
don’t get that—. You know, there isn’t that
culture amongst some of the farming community. So, that’s
something that we can certainly use as a case study. The charity,
the third sector one, I presume that was a
one-off—
|
|
[290] Mr Lea: Yes. I
think we could do further case studies to look at innovation in
both the voluntary sector—. Actually, Coed Cymru, on exactly
the points you’ve raised, agreed at the last meeting that we
had them that they would produce a paper on innovation and
how farmers can actually link through to community woodlands.
They’re going to produce a paper that would then influence
our future land-use schemes as well.
|
|
[291] Jenny
Rathbone: Okay. Well, that’s great. It’s really
good to hear you’re meeting the Woodknowledge Wales people
and that you’re thinking of changing the regulations to
promote more timber construction in building. For example, we know
that Powys has adopted a ‘wood first’ policy. Is this
something that you’d be minded to promote across the whole of
Wales, or to change the building regulations to implement that?
|
|
[292] Lesley
Griffiths: Well, as you know, I’m looking at the building
regulations; so, we’re looking at that in the round.
|
|
[293] Jenny
Rathbone: Okay. I suppose it then, from that, follows: how do
we manage the gap we currently have between a shortage of building,
of growing trees and the timescale involved before they become a
productive product?
|
|
[294] Lesley
Griffiths: Well, that’s the reason why we have to be
radical. I visited a timber company up in north Wales who said,
‘This is all we’ve got left’. I wasn’t
quite sure whether that was the case or not, but it is obviously of
great concern to the sector. So, one of the reasons, as I say, I
got everybody in the room was because they’re telling me that
we’re not growing enough trees and we’re not growing
the right trees. The commercial sector loves conifers. Other parts
of the forestry world don’t. They prefer the broadleaved. So,
it’s about getting that balance.
|
|
[295] Just going back
to Scotland—you mentioned Scotland and everybody going up to
Scotland. I think one of the things I’m very keen to
pursue—and I’ve asked officials to look at, and I
don’t know whether this has come across in the evidence that
you’ve taken already—but they have looked at innovation
in relation to sheep and trees. I don’t know if this has come
up in committee. The clerk is shaking his head. They’ve
created a woodland creation grant, and farmers can apply for that
and the forest infrastructure grant at the same time. So,
basically, they can make tracks or roads alongside where they plant
woodland because, again, that’s something that people have
said to me is a barrier. So, we’re looking—officials
are meeting the Scottish officials—to see if we can do
something around that. But something is attracting people to
Scotland, as you say.
|
|
[296] Jenny
Rathbone: Okay. And what about the regulations? Because,
obviously, we have much more constrained regulations here in Wales
than they do in either England or Scotland.
|
|
[297] Lesley
Griffiths: Yes. So, I mentioned earlier—
|
|
[298] Jenny
Rathbone: Oh yes, so, you’re looking firmly at that.
Okay. Thank you very much.
|
|
[299] Mike
Hedges: Huw, you wanted to—.
|
|
[300] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Chair, yes. In testing how radical
your thinking is, looking just across the border, one of the most
successful—. It’s had challenges, but one of the most
successful schemes in large-scale spatial planting, particularly in
despoiled areas, is the National Forest Company—a company
limited by guarantee, that’s brought in a lot of partners,
and a lot of private investment behind it. I’m looking in
front of me now at the mapping that you’ve already done of
Wales. If you look at the dark green areas, which are the most
likely for planting, it stretches basically from the Newport area
across to Llanelli. Those are the ones that are really identified
with potential. We talk about the Valleys Regional Park; I’m
sure it will come up in the Valleys taskforce as well. Are you
considering those radical thoughts that say, ‘Well, how do we
actually bring all this together?’? We already have a lot
planted within south Wales. The potential is even greater. We could
be commercial. It could be indigenous planting, it could be
community woodland, it could be a social enterprise model, and it
could be a company limited by guarantee. Are you doing that sort of
radical thinking?
|
|
[301] Lesley
Griffiths: Yes, we have to have a completely different approach
if we’re going to reach that target. So, I’ve told
officials they can come to me with absolutely any ideas to make
sure we increase the number of trees that we are planting. So,
I’m saying ‘yes’. I’m hoping that officials
are going to back me up here and say ‘yes’.
|
|
[302] Mr Lea:
Exactly, as you said—
|
|
[303] Huw
Irranca-Davies: And particularly the National Forestry
Company—
|
|
[304] Mr Lea:
Yes, well, I think a case study on that would be something that
would be really useful as part of our looking at innovation. But
going back also to what we said earlier, this innovation in
funding, which picks that up as well—innovation in business
and innovation in funding—is actually key, and I think there
will be opportunities. That’s a good point that we need to
look at.
|
|
[305] Jenny
Rathbone: [Inaudible.]—new radical policy?
|
|
[306] Lesley
Griffiths: Well, because of Brexit coming so quickly down the
track, we’ve got to be ready for it. I’ve said 2018
because that’s obviously—
|
|
[307] Jenny
Rathbone: Around the corner.
|
|
[308] Lesley
Griffiths: —around the corner. I’m being told by
the commercial sector that they’re going to run out of trees
within the next decade. So, we have to do something very
quickly.
|
|
[309]
Mike Hedges: Jayne.
|
|
[310]
Jayne Bryant: Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Cabinet
Secretary.
|
|
[311]
Lesley Griffiths:
Good morning.
|
|
[312]
Jayne Bryant: We’ve had a number of concerns around the lack
of young people in forestry education and training, and NRW have
said that they’ve got more of an enabling role, now, within
that. Where do you see the Welsh Government’s role within
education and training, and encouraging and supporting young people
to go into that, and how do you think improvements could be
made?
|
|
[313]
Lesley Griffiths:
Well, it’s a discussion I’ve
had with both the Cabinet Secretary, and also the Minister for
skills. Obviously it’s demand led, but I think there is that
provision there. I was up in Bangor on the same day we went to
Llanrwst, discussing, not specifically forestry but a wide range of
subjects, and they have a degree, for instance, in forestry that
I’m aware of, but I think there is that provision there. As I
say, it’s demand led so it’s about making sure that
young people find it an attractive career choice. I have to say
that most of the people I’ve met within the commercial
forestry sector haven’t been particularly at the young end of
the scale—they’re probably more middle-aged. But, I
think, again, we have had focus on the Forestry First project, and
that was funded out of RDP funding, so, certainly, I think our role
is fulfilled, if you like, in relation to that.
|
|
[314]
Jayne Bryant: Is there any way to support other organisations that
are doing the education and training to make it seen in its
entirety in a more strategic view on trying to get young people
into that?
|
|
[315]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes. Certainly if we’re told that
there are skills gaps, we could work with them. Farming Connect is
one organisation. Lantra: I don’t know if you’re aware
of Lantra, but that’s another organisation that we have; they
lead on the delivery of lifelong learning and the development
programme, so one thing they do is provide continuous professional
development and support for farmers and the forestry sector. There
are lots of e-learning packages also that they provide, so that
training is out there.
|
|
[316]
Simon
Thomas: Roeddech chi’n sôn gynnau fach am gwrdd
â’r grŵp merched mewn amaeth, ac rwy’n
gobeithio cwrdd â nhw heddiw fy hun. Maen nhw wedi rhoi papur
at ei gilydd sy’n sôn yn benodol am hyfforddiant, yn
wyneb Brexit, fod angen sgiliau, bod angen i bawb sy’n
gweithio mewn amaeth i fod â’r sgiliau i fod yn barod
ar gyfer yr heriau sydd i ddod. Yng nghyd-destun coedwigaeth, wrth
drafod gyda’r sector addysg bellach hefyd, nid oes llwybr
clir iawn i berson ifanc sydd â diddordeb mewn coedwigaeth i
fynd. Mae’r llwybrau yn y maes mwy amaethyddol yn fwy clir,
ac mae yna ddatblygiad diddorol o ran dysgu amaeth mewn chweched
dosbarth yn digwydd mewn rhannau o Gymru nawr ac mae yna mwy o
ddiddordeb yn hynny, ond nid oes yna lwybr clir iawn o ran
prentisiaeth, o ran hyfforddiant, o ran y gwaith efallai y gall
Cymwysterau Cymru ei wneud i roi dewis o hyfforddiant a
chymwysterau penodol i goedwigaeth. Rŷm ni’n gwybod bod
lot o goetiroedd yng Nghymru heb gael eu rheoli yn briodol,
oherwydd diffyg sgiliau, o bosib, yw rhan o hynny. Felly, a oes yna
rywbeth penodol y gallwch chi ei wneud fel Llywodraeth i arwain yn
y maes yma i yrru’r proses yma, o ystyried bod popeth yn mynd
i newid mewn dwy flynedd ar ôl i ni adael yr Undeb
Ewropeaidd?
|
Simon Thomas: You did mention a little earlier about meeting with
the women in agriculture group, and I hope to be meeting them today
myself. They’ve put a paper together specifically discussing
training in the face of the coming exit from the EU, the need for
skills, and for everyone in agriculture to have skills that enable
them to face the challenges that will arise. In the context of
forestry, having talked with the further education sector as well,
there isn’t a very clear route for a young person who has an
interest in forestry to go. The routes in the agricultural sector
more generally are clearer, and there are interesting developments
about teaching agriculture in sixth forms in parts of Wales, and
there’s a great interest in that, but there’s no clear
route in terms of apprenticeships, in terms of training or in terms
of the work that Qualifications Wales could carry out, perhaps, to
give the option of training and specific qualifications in
forestry. We know that there is a big number of woodlands in Wales
that are not being adequately managed, perhaps because of a lack of
skills. So, is there something specific that you could do as a
Government to take a lead in this area and to drive this process,
given that everything is going to change in two years’ time
after we’ve left the European Union?
|
|
[317]
Lesley Griffiths:
A lot less than two years, now. They did
tell me they were meeting you, actually; I’d forgotten about
that, Simon, sorry. I only had half an hour with them so I only
touched on that briefly, but you’re quite right. I think,
looking at the opportunities, Brexit does give us those
opportunities, so apprenticeships is one area that I have
discussed, not with my ministerial colleagues, but in our
stakeholder group. So, for instance, the food and drinks sector, if
you include everybody—food processors, abattoirs,
restaurants—employs 0.25 million people, so that’s one
area where I have had specific discussions with Julie James around
apprenticeships. But, I think you’re right around agriculture
and forestry. I think there are the opportunities to make sure
those skills are there and, as I say, that’s something I can
certainly discuss, not just with ministerial colleagues but with
Farming Connect, for instance, as they’re represented on this
group this morning, and Lantra too.
|
|
[318]
Simon
Thomas: Byddwn i’n croesawu hynny.
|
Simon Thomas: I
would welcome that.
|
|
[319]
Mike Hedges: Woodland management, David.
|
|
12:15
|
|
[320]
David Melding: Yes. We’ve heard that about 40 per cent of our
woodland is not very well managed, or managed at all. How concerned
are you about that and what do you think would be an acceptable
level of next-to-no management, anyway? Because some, presumably,
isn’t conducive to being managed. Are you considering
bringing back the grants that would allow more active
management?
|
|
[321]
Lesley Griffiths:
I haven’t heard that figure of 40
per cent. Your natural reaction is to say ‘100 per
cent’, but as you say, that’s not feasible. I mentioned
before the Glastir woodland management grant. That’s not been
opened, but it’s something that I am considering, because I
think that would help. So, that has come back to me. We’ve
obviously had Glastir woodland restoration and Glastir woodland
creation, and I mentioned before the timber business investment,
but I am considering the Glastir woodland management, and perhaps,
if you could look at that figure of 40 per cent, then I could
perhaps consider that in light of that.
|
|
[322]
David Melding: Yes, it’s 40 per cent that is inadequately or
not managed at all at the minute.
|
|
[323]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes.
|
|
[324]
Jenny Rathbone:
On a quick supplementary, can I just
ask—? The commercial sector says that the woodland
restoration work is at risk of displacing what little commercial
forestry already exists on that land, and that what they think
would be needed would be to identify other land where they could
plant commercial forestry, and that would then make people a lot
more willing to engage with the restoration process—if they
had an alternative piece of land for commercial
production.
|
|
[325]
Lesley Griffiths:
So you’re saying they want us to
find the alternative piece of land.
|
|
[326]
Jenny Rathbone:
Yes, or not you personally, but, you
know, that if other land is identified, ‘Right, please put
your commercial woodland on an alternative piece of
land.’
|
|
[327]
Mr Lea: I think in terms of the opportunities map,
that’s there to help support potential opportunities for
woodland planting. The other issue is land availability and the
link back to price. Obviously the price of land for agriculture or
forestry use has been extremely high in Wales in the last few
years. There’s some evidence in some areas that it’s
dropped slightly recently, which hopefully, and possibly with
Brexit, could be something that could release more opportunities.
But in a sense, it’s all about the land availability and its
price, and a lot of it has been snapped up by other farms for
commercial agriculture. The forestry sector is saying they’re
starting to grab some land where it’s optimal now that they
can actually afford to buy it and make forestry work.
|
|
[328]
Mike Hedges: Onto access for recreation now, Gareth.
|
|
[329]
Gareth Bennett:
Thanks, Chair. Yes. Do you think that
Natural Resources Wales is taking a sufficiently strategic approach
to managing public access to its woodland managed areas?
|
|
[330]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes. They directly manage, obviously, our
estate. I think woodlands have a very important role to play in
regenerating some of our most deprived communities, so I think
it’s really important. I certainly value access to open
spaces and countryside, and I think probably everybody around this
table does. In fact, I think to the public it’s very
important that they have their access to those open
spaces.
|
|
[331]
Obviously, NRW works with a range of
partners to focus on the areas of greatest need. I’ve asked
NRW—and I think they do—they encourage people to look
at woodlands for activities and to encourage communities to go into
the woodlands for activities.
|
|
[332]
Gareth Bennett:
There wasn’t anything specific in
the legislative programme of the Government on access reform to
those areas. So, did you have any more information about any likely
change, and what the timetable for that would be?
|
|
[333] Lesley Griffiths: There is nothing specifically in this year’s
legislative programme, but obviously I’ve gone out to
consultation around sustainable management of our natural
resources. It could be that when I hear the views and the thoughts
of stakeholders and members of the public it’s something that
we can look at. With regard to legislation, I have to make sure
I’ve got space post Brexit. In the Queen’s Speech we
heard about, for instance, an agricultural Bill and a fisheries
Bill. Well, we had no prior knowledge of those. I’ve made it
very clear that Wales will have its own agricultural policy going
forward. We don’t know, once the great repeal Bill or
whatever it’s going to be called is published, what
legislation we’re going to need, but it’s something
that I’ll certainly consider around all aspects of green
growth in relation to legislation once the
consultation’s finished.
|
|
[334] Gareth
Bennett: Okay, thanks.
|
|
[335] Mike
Hedges: Huw.
|
|
[336] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Chair. At the recent inquiry session
we held in Maesteg, we had stakeholders who were engaged in access
issues, particularly to the publicly owned forestry. So, we had
shooters, mountain bikers, motorcyclists, long-distance trail
riders, ramblers, and so on. What was amazing was, one, the degree
of consensus around the desire for access and the willingness to
work together on it. It’s moved on significantly. But the
other thing is—and I can recall David reporting back on this
at the end of their group there—was that many of those,
including those with the noisier forms, were willing to look at the
issue of paying for access. I think it would be problematic with
ramblers, and so on, but those who realise they have an impact on
it would be willing and able to actually pay for a licence, this,
that and the other. I’m just wondering whether you’re
considering that sort of approach in terms of widening the access
by some sort of cost sharing, or whether it would be an idea for
you, Cabinet Secretary, with your officials to convene a wider
group than the usual suspects and to sit down and say, ‘How
do we pull some money into this situation and improve access for
everybody?’
|
|
[337]
Lesley Griffiths:
That’s a good idea. Maybe we could
look to do that. I wouldn’t say I’m considering it at
the moment. As I mentioned in my answer to Gareth Bennett,
I’m looking at the legislative regimes, if you like, around
access. There was a big review undertaken by—I think not my
predecessor, but my predecessor’s predecessor, if you
like—back in, I think it was about 2014. So, we’ve had
that review of the legislative framework, if you like. I’m
sure, if I remember rightly, that that consultation was the biggest
one Welsh Government ever—. I think there were about 6,000
responses. So, it’s something, as I say, we’re
currently considering, but I have to look at it in the wider
context now.
|
|
[338]
Mr Lea: Just to add, Cabinet Secretary, we’re also
looking at innovation with the NRW estate and the public land
we’ve got in relation to some of the things that you
mentioned—innovation in land use and whether those areas
could be joined in with more collaborative ventures with other
bodies. So, all that is in scope for working with NRW.
|
|
[339]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
I suspect there may well be potential for
you, one, in how the debate has moved on and, secondly, the
willingness of some to actually contribute to access payments, but
also the fact that they’re willing to look at areas where
they could pilot this sort of approach. So—
|
|
[340]
Lesley Griffiths:
I think you’re right, because I sat
on this committee back in 2007 and 2008, and I think if that
consensus is there then it has moved on considerably.
|
|
[341]
Mike Hedges: Jayne, did you want to come on to community
involvement?
|
|
[342]
Jayne Bryant: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to touch on the
community involvement aspects. As Huw mentioned, we had this
fantastic event in Huw’s constituency in Maesteg recently,
and we were very pleased to have gone there, but we heard
conflicting views around the support and the guidance available for
community woodland groups. How do you see that we could do more or
that more could be done to support and guide those community
woodland groups, particularly around supporting them and reducing
the amount of barriers that are put in their way, perhaps, to take
over certain parts of the woodland?
|
|
[343]
Lesley Griffiths:
I visited a woodland in your
constituency—
|
|
[344]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Llynfi.
|
|
[345]
Lesley Griffiths:
It’s the same place. In pouring
rain, if I remember rightly, Huw.
|
|
[346]
David Melding: It was fine for us. [Laughter.]
|
|
[347]
Lesley Griffiths:
It was fine for you. The sun shines on
the righteous. I think it was one of my very first visits,
actually, when I came into portfolio and, obviously, they’d
been very successful in securing core funding and then creating
this wonderful area. They’ve got a lot of members, if I
remember rightly; it’s a very big one.
|
|
[348]
I think we need to look—. Because
you can provide funding, and we all know that funding is a big
issue, but it’s about making sure it’s sustainable
going forward. And funnily enough, I had a meeting this morning
about looking at how my funding is split into project funding and
core funding, and how we can get that balance, because it’s
the smaller groups that I would prefer to support than some of the
very large bodies that can probably—. You know, their wings
are probably fully fledged now, and they can fly off on their own.
So, I think we need to look at the whole issue of funding. I think
my funding streams, if you like, the core funding and the project
funding, are until next year, but what I’ve asked officials
to do is to take some time to have a look at how we can support
groups such as you suggest in the longer term. I think it’s
also up to NRW to work with these groups as well, and I know they
have held some seminars recently to support them.
|
|
[349]
Mike Hedges: Jenny, you wanted to come back in.
|
|
[350] Jenny Rathbone: Yes, I just wanted to ask you about urban tree
cover and your approach to that. Obviously, the Woodland
Trust recommends 20 per cent tree cover. Yet, miserably, many new
housing developments have 1 per cent tree cover, and NRW told us
that, whilst some local authorities engage well with them—and
Wrexham was one of the ones they mentioned—others are simply
not putting binding planning consent regulations into the
applications, and section 106 money doesn’t seem to be being
used on this really important environmental and flood-risk and
recreational aspect. So, I just wondered what plans you might have
to tighten up the planning regulations to make sure that this is a
priority.
|
|
[351] Lesley
Griffiths: And air quality—something I know you’re
very interested in.
|
|
[352] Jenny
Rathbone: Indeed.
|
|
[353] Lesley
Griffiths: No, I think you’re right. It’s not just
about woodlands, is it, it’s about urban trees as well? I did
mention in an earlier answer that I’m trying to link in
planning policy to make sure that, where we have new roads—.
For instance, I came down to south Wales this week via
Newtown— you can see the new Newtown road—and it kind
of went through my mind then that we must make sure that there are
a significant number of trees planted along here. So, it’s
something that we’re looking at. Everywhere where we have, as
I say, new roads, new housing developments, new parks, for
instance, I think we should make sure that there is a significant
thing. So, I’m looking to maybe issue guidance to local
authorities going forward. So, that’s an ongoing piece of
work.
|
|
[354] Jenny
Rathbone: Thank you.
|
|
[355] Mike
Hedges: David.
|
|
[356] David
Melding: I was very interested in your written evidence. You
referred to the NRW study ‘Tree cover in Wales’s Towns
and Cities.’ In fact, I raised this with the First Minister
in questions this week. And you’ve sent that study to the
public services boards as part of what they should be considering
in relation to the future generations Act. We’ve heard the
Woodland Trust saying that we ought to have a minimum of 20 per
cent canopy in urban areas. You say, and it’s very
interesting, that the potential is for up to 35 per cent urban
coverage. And I think that’s great that we’re hearing
that. My question is: why aren’t you telling the local
service boards that they should come up with an intergenerational
target now that we should be working to, because that’s how
the FGA should be used? You’ve said a potential of 35 per
cent. We’ve got a minimum—the environmental sector,
anyway, is saying it should be 20 per cent. Why aren’t they
going to look at—? Well, are you going to ask them to really
look at this and come back with some meaningful advice so we can
set a good strategic target?
|
|
[357] Lesley
Griffiths: The short answer is ‘yes’—yes, we
are.
|
|
[358] David
Melding: That’s a very pleasing answer.
|
|
[359] Lesley
Griffiths: Good. I’m glad I’ve pleased you,
David.
|
|
[360] Mike
Hedges: And, finally, Simon.
|
|
[361] Simon
Thomas: Just at the conclusion of this, I’d like to take
us back to the beginning, and it kind of links in to one aspect of
David’s question. We’ve discussed several things here.
David’s question was on one aspect of this, which, when you
look back at your woodland strategy, actually is not there. So, the
woodland strategy doesn’t address this 35 per cent. Your
woodland strategy doesn’t, I think, address the economic
potential for woodland, and particularly, post Brexit, it
doesn’t address the training aspects that we’ve been
discussing. You did, in replying to the committee Chair at the
start, say that you were looking to refresh that strategy. What
I’d like to get a sense from you now is how and in what way
you’d like to change that strategy, and are these issues that
we’ve been discussing this morning the ones that you will now
be putting at the forefront of your strategy? And if I might just
say, as a little adjunct to that, doesn’t that then lead to a
question of why you haven’t opened the Glastir woodland
management grant, and surely that should now be a matter of urgency
for you, as you are underspending on these issues within that
portfolio?
|
|
[362] Lesley
Griffiths: So, I said at the outset, as you said, that I will
be refreshing it, maybe later this year, but certainly, early next
year, if not later this year, because of the gaps—because the
gaps are in it. So, you come into portfolio and it takes you a
little while to get to grips with everything, but, certainly, this
is an area where I’ve had a lot of representation, to the
point where I got everybody in a room together because I was just
getting such conflicting messages. And, as I say, you’ll
always have a tension between the regulator and the people who are
being regulated. However, you need to find out what the real issues
are. So, I think it was the gaps, particularly around urban,
because, as I say, if we’re going to have a radical change of
direction in order to reach those
targets, it’s not just about woodland creation and we
can’t just rely on farmers; we have to all pull together. And
I think urban is an area where there is a big gap, and that’s
why I was very happy to put that in the paper.
|
|
12:30
|
|
[363]
In relation to your question around
Glastir woodland management, as I say, I am considering it at the
moment. So, watch this space.
|
|
[364]
Mike Hedges: Cabinet Secretary, can I thank you for your
attendance and that of your officials? And, as you know,
you’ll be sent a transcript of the meeting, to check before
publication. But thank you very much for coming and answering our
questions so succinctly. Thank you very much.
|
|
[365]
Lesley Griffiths:
Thank you, Chair.
|
|
12:30
|
|
Papurau i’w Nodi
Papers to Note
|
|
[366]
Mike Hedges: We now move on to a series of papers for noting. Can
I ask somebody to move we note them, and then readdress them at the
appropriate time, because some of them are actually tasking us to
do something, but now is not the appropriate time to do so? Thank
you. Well, see you all back at one o’clock.
|
|
[367]
David Melding: So moved.
|
|
[368]
Simon Thomas: Yes, happy.
|
|
[369]
Mike Hedges: Right, thank you. See you all back at 1
o’clock.
|
|
Daeth y
cyfarfod i ben am 12:31.
The meeting ended at 12:31.
|
