More focus on forestry sector needed to show farmers the long-term benefits

WHILE Brexit seems to throw up new areas of uncertainty on an almost daily basis, there are a few things we can be sure of, writes Martin Bishop, Confor manager for Wales.

Public financial support for the rural sector will change. How it will change is less certain, but it will. A good guess is the oft-quoted theme of public funding for public goods, which injects even more uncertainty.

What we are certain of is that commercial forestry can return a profit – the UK forests market report demonstrates the financial incomes possible from forests. With many reports showing the demand for forest products worldwide is rising continually, we can safely assume a long-term market in the UK for the products. And rising demand means profitability.

So let’s do it. Well, that is easier said than done.

First we have to persuade the owners of land, the farming sector, that we can offer a long-term profitable future. We also have to persuade them that the offer is more certain than the future alternatives, which should be not difficult given the conversations I hear almost daily from the Welsh Government.

Secondly, we have to look at shortterm funding to provide an income for farmers and landowners. Jam tomorrow is all very nice but everyone needs bread on the table today. This is where the public funding for public goods comes in. We know the benefits woodlands and forests provide – clean air, water management, recreation, biodiversity, etc – and these could form the basis of funding in the short term.

However, measuring these benefits is difficult and we certainly do not want to have hundreds of officials trawling the countryside measuring the immeasurable.

Simply accepting the benefits and funding them for a short period would bridge the income gap. The resource would very soon start to generate its own income, after which public funding could stop (which is a huge benefit for the public purse).

Woodlands and forests designed under the UK Forestry Standard have to incorporate at least 25% non-commercial areas and that is included in the financial models used to predict the returns on the forest.

The decision on whether to go further and increase the non-commercial area should be the owner’s choice and, as such, would have to be funded by them. But at least they do have the choice and would not be subject to the whims of any politician or EU officials (as some seem to think we may still end up being beholden to).

The third thing we have to do is to get the regulatory system in Wales to allow farmers to plant forests. Now that seems madness, but it is a reality and obstacles will need to be overcome. Public perception is key among these and farmers and landowners, as part of rural communities, should be well-placed to allay public fears. The forestry sector has the information and we can easily provide that to help them.

Wales has a huge area of less favourable land that is currently used to keep sheep. It is land that has little other uses and is not the high environmental land like the uplands, so has less constraints.

The Welsh Government needs to understand there is a viable alternative to agriculture. If they put just a fraction of the effort into understanding and enabling the woodlands and forestry sector that they put into agriculture, then woodlands and forestry could be a much larger part of the Welsh landscape.