August 2009
A project for Forestry
Commission Scotland
(FCS)
Evaluation of the Land Use Strategy (LUS) Forestry Focussed Sub- Regional Pilot Studies
Final Report
27th March 2015
Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited Final Report March 2015
Project title: Evaluation of the Land Use Strategy (LUS) Forestry Focussed Sub-Regional Pilot Studies Contracting organisation: Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) Contractor: Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited (CEP) Lead details: Head office: Address: 1E The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7QY Contact: Ric Eales (Project Director) Tel. 020 7407 8700 Fax. 020 7928 6950 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cep.co.uk
Scottish office: Address: c/o Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Level 5, James Weir Building, 75 Montrose Street, Glasgow G1 1XJ Contact: Dr Peter Phillips (Project Manager) Tel. 0141 416 8700 Email: [email protected] Report details: Report title: Final Report Date issued: 27th March 2015 Version no.: 2 Author(s): Dr Peter Phillips, Paula Orr and Rolands Sadauskis Reviewed by: Ric Eales
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 1 Final Report March 2015
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Objectives of the evaluation ...... 3 1.2 Purpose and contents of this Final Report ...... 3 1.3 Context for the evaluation ...... 4 2. Methodology ...... 9 2.1 Introduction to the sub-regional pilots ...... 9 2.2 The overall approach ...... 12 2.3 Data collection methods used in the evaluation ...... 13 2.4 Data analysis methods used in the evaluation ...... 15 2.5 The evaluation framework ...... 16 3. Identifying themes for sub-regional forest planning ...... 18 3.1 Sub-regional forest planning themes ...... 18 3.2 Sub-regional forest planning themes – relevance to the pilots ...... 19 3.3 Sub-regional forest planning themes – relevance to stakeholders ...... 22 4. Cowal pilot – summary of evaluation results...... 25 4.1 Processes followed in the development of the Cowal pilot ...... 25 4.2 Integration of LUS Principles in the Cowal pilot framework ...... 28 4.3 The Cowal pilot’s influence on local level land use decision-making ...... 29 4.4 Costs and benefits of the Cowal pilot ...... 30 4.5 Strengths and weaknesses of the Cowal pilot ...... 30 5. Dumfries and Galloway pilot – summary of evaluation results ...... 34 5.1 Processes followed in the development of the Dumfries and Galloway pilot ...... 34 5.2 Integration of LUS Principles in the Dumfries and Galloway pilot framework ...... 37 5.3 The Dumfries and Galloway pilot’s influence on local level land use decision-making ...... 39 5.4 Costs and benefits of the Dumfries and Galloway pilot ...... 39 5.5 Strengths and weaknesses of the Dumfries and Galloway pilot ...... 40 6. Flow Country pilot – summary of evaluation results ...... 42 6.1 Processes followed in the development of the Flow Country pilot ...... 42 6.2 Integration of LUS Principles in the Flow Country pilot framework ...... 47 6.3 The Flow Country pilot’s influence on local level land use decision-making ...... 48 6.4 Costs and benefits of the Flow Country pilot ...... 48 6.5 Strengths and weaknesses of the Flow Country pilot ...... 49 7. Synthesis and conclusions ...... 52 7.1 Synthesis of key findings ...... 52 7.2 National level policy opportunities and issues ...... 54 7.3 Conclusions ...... 56 Appendix 1: Criteria for document review ...... 58 Appendix 2: Pre-determined codes used in analysis ...... 59 Appendix 3: Criteria to help identify integration of LUS Principles ...... 61 Appendix 4: Sub-regional forest planning themes – pilot data ...... 67 Appendix 5: Sub-regional forest planning themes – stakeholder data ...... 68 Appendix 6: Cowal pilot Evaluation Question No.2 detailed analysis ...... 70 Appendix 7: D&G pilot Evaluation Question No.2 detailed analysis ...... 81 Appendix 8: Flow Country pilot Evaluation Question No.2 detailed analysis 92
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 2 Final Report March 2015
1. Introduction
Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) commissioned Collingwood Environmental Planning (CEP) Limited to undertake the Evaluation of the Land Use Strategy (LUS) Forestry Focussed Sub-Regional Pilot Studies. The sub-regional pilots were a direct recommendation from the 2012 Woodland Expansion Advisory Group (WEAG) report1, as explained further at section 1.3. The evaluation was undertaken between July 2014 and February 2015. This is the Final Report of the evaluation project.
1.1 Objectives of the evaluation The objectives for the evaluation are set out in Box 1 below. These objectives were agreed with the FCS Project Manager during the early stages of the project. The overall aim of the evaluation project is to inform future policy and practice in sub-regional forest planning, supporting the strategic objectives of Scotland’s Land Use Strategy – the LUS2. Box 1. Objectives of the evaluation 1. To examine and evidence the processes that helped shape each pilot project 2. To assess and examine each pilot in terms of its potential ability to guide local level land use decision- making to help meet the overall objectives of the LUS 3. To provide evidence on whether the pilot projects have influenced local level land use decision- making to help meet the overall objectives of the LUS 4. To provide evidence and views from responsible organisations and stakeholders in the pilot areas on whether the benefits of the pilots justify the costs and resources required for their development 5. To identify strengths, weaknesses and good-practice in the pilot frameworks
1.2 Purpose and contents of this Final Report This is the Final Report of the FCS commissioned Evaluation of the Land Use Strategy (LUS) Forestry Focussed Sub-Regional Pilot Studies. It is intended to provide a comprehensive report of the evaluation project’s main findings as well as details of the methodological approach adopted. The Final Report is structured as follows: Chapter 1 – Introduction: Outlines the aims and objectives of the project and sets the context for the evaluation, especially in terms of the key policies that influence forest planning and development and land use more generally in Scotland. Chapter 2 – Methodology: Describes the methodology adopted for the project including details of the evaluation framework and the specific research questions considered. Chapter 3 – Identifying themes for sub-regional forest planning: Introduces the nineteen sub-regional forest planning themes identified through the evaluation and discusses their relevance for the three pilots and for the different forest planning stakeholders engaged in the evaluation. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 – Pilot specific summaries of evaluation results: Summarises the evaluation results for each pilot with reference to the specific questions asked in the evaluation. These Chapters are supported by more detailed appendices that document the assessment of LUS Principle integration by the pilot frameworks.
1 Report of the Woodland Expansion Advisory Group (WEAG, 2012): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/WEAGFinalReport.pdf [accessed 30/07/14] 2 Getting the best from our land – a land use strategy for Scotland (Scottish Government, 2011): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/345946/0115155.pdf [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 3 Final Report March 2015
Chapter 7 – Synthesis and conclusions: Presents a synthesis of the evaluation results and outlines the main findings and conclusions.
1.3 Context for the evaluation The Scottish Forestry Strategy and the rationale for woodland expansion The 2006 Scottish Forestry Strategy3 (SFS) sets out a clear ambition to increase woodland cover in Scotland. In particular, the SFS seeks to increase woodland cover from 17% to around 25% during the second half of the 21st century. This would necessitate the creation of 650,000ha of new woodland delivered through annual planting programmes of between 10,000 and 15,000ha a year4. The rationale for such an increase is centred on the broad range of benefits that forest development can contribute to. The SFS sets out seven key priorities for woodland creation in Scotland, highlighting the various benefits that sustainable forest development can deliver: Contributing to climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration and the production of timber and fuel Restoring lost habitats and adapting to climate change through the provision of forest habitat networks and new native woodland Delivering a wide range of ecosystem services such as sustainable flood risk management and the protection of soil and water resources Underpinning a sustainable forest products industry supplying consistent and reliable timber for a variety of purposes including wood fuel and construction Supporting rural development including through farm diversification Providing community benefits where health and community need is greatest through, for example, access and outdoor recreation and volunteering opportunities Enhancing urban areas and improving landscapes by improving vacant an derelict land and helping to diversity farmed landscapes In principle, woodland expansion of the scale expressed in the SFS is possible. The 2009 FCS paper setting out The Scottish Government’s Rationale for Woodland Expansion provides a broad assessment of how the SFS’ ambitious target of 650,000ha of new woodland could be achieved with the most substantive forest development taking place on improved grassland, unimproved grassland / bracken and shrub heath land types5. Crucially this land use strategy would see minimal forest development on better quality agricultural land and no development on bogs, which are critical for their high carbon soils / climate change mitigation function. Despite this, the complexity of Scotland’s landscapes and the wider land use issues this raises (not least the need to maintain an appropriate land use balance between forestry and other land uses) undoubtedly act to constrain forest development. In addition, the FCS’ regulation of new woodland creation and the costs associated with meeting these regulatory requirements can deter prospective applicants, further constraining forest development and the delivery of the SFS ambition6.
3 The Scottish Forestry Strategy (Scottish Executive, 2006): http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/fcfc101.pdf/$FILE/fcfc101.pdf [accessed 14/01/15] 4 Ibid 5 Ibid 6 Report of the Woodland Expansion Advisory Group (WEAG, 2012): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/WEAGFinalReport.pdf [accessed 30/07/14]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 4 Final Report March 2015
The Woodland Expansion Advisory Group Recognising these issues and constraints, the Woodland Expansion Advisory Group (WEAG) was established in 2011 to “provide advice to the Cabinet Secretary on identifying more closely which types of land are best for tree planting in Scotland, in the context of other land based objectives; and on promoting good-practice and local processes in relation to tree planting so as to secure multiple benefits” (WEAG, 2012 p.15). The WEAG’s remit was very much focussed on addressing the issues set out in the sub-section above – i.e. identifying where and how woodland expansion can take place given the constraints and opportunities posed by other land uses in order to secure the range of multiple benefits from forestry anticipated by the SFS. The WEAG took a pragmatic approach to the SFS’ woodland creation ambition however, highlighting their view that “there is no need to set such long-term targets for woodland expansion and that, without buy-in from all land use sectors, they can act as a barrier to achieving short-term goals” (WEAG, 2012 p.16). Instead, the WEAG report sets out the challenge for delivering a woodland creation target of 100,000ha of new woodland over the period 2012 – 2022, as demanded by existing Scottish Government policy7. In terms of constraints to woodland creation, the WEAG report highlights concerns amongst private sector forestry interests that the forest planning system is stacked against them (thereby delaying planting on the ground) as well as the concerns of other land managers (e.g. farmers) over conflicts between forestry and other land uses. In essence, there are a range of constraints to forest development and a threat that woodland expansion in Scotland may stagnate further, working against the Scottish Government’s targets for 2022. The WEAG report also sets out the ‘three phase’ approach adopted by the James Hutton Institute (JHI) and Forest Research in the analysis of forest development constraints across Scotland’s land area. The objective of this analysis was to quantify the portion of Scotland’s land area that may be available for woodland expansion. The WEAG report recognises that Phase 18 and Phase 29 land is constrained such that opportunities for woodland expansion are likely to be limited in scale and / or type – e.g. woodland expansion on prime agricultural land may be restricted to small woods, hedgerow trees and riparian woodlands and expansion within designated areas is likely to be restricted to native woodland. Although Phase 310 land comprises some 34% of Scotland’s land area it is also subject to constraints that may impact opportunities for woodland expansion e.g. presence of deep peat, presence of UKBAP priority habitats and species etc. The presence of these local level constraints on ‘preferred’ land for woodland expansion is a key issue for sub-regional forest planning, as explained further below. The rationale for a strategic approach to forest planning In line with the above, the WEAG report stresses the need for a strategic approach to woodland creation that can promote woodland expansion and reduce conflicts. The current approach is outlined in the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) publication – The Right Tree in the Right Place (RTRP): Planning for Forestry and Woodlands11 – which provides guidance to planning authorities on the preparation of Forestry and Woodland Strategies (FWS). Through a process of constraints analysis, environmental assessment and stakeholder engagement, FWS identify areas of land that are preferred, potential or sensitive for forest development.
7 Ibid 8 Land that is predominantly not available for woodland expansion (e.g. land that is already wooded, prime agricultural land, contiguous areas of peat over 0.5m deep etc) 9 Land that is affected by national designations and policies which impose varying degrees of constraint on woodland expansion (e.g. national and international conservation designations) 10 Land that is not included in Phases 1 and 2 and which is most likely to have potential for woodland expansion 11 The Right Tree in the Right Place: Planning for Forestry and Woodlands (FCS, 2010): http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcfc129.pdf/$FILE/fcfc129.pdf [accessed 30/07/14]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 5 Final Report March 2015
However there are acknowledged problems with the RTRP guidance and FWS, especially the scale at which FWS operate (i.e. whole local authority areas) and the fact that all woodland creation applications are required to go through the full approvals procedure, regardless of whether the proposed site lies within a preferred, potential or sensitive area for woodland creation. The scale issue is particularly significant given that: (1) certain ‘bottom-up’ stakeholders (e.g. farmers) may be less likely to engage with forest strategy and planning activities at the regional scale; and (2) strategic planning at the regional scale cannot reasonably pick-up fine scale constraints at the site level (e.g. archaeology, UKBAP habitats and species), meaning therefore that the full approvals procedure will always have to be followed to provide sufficient reassurance to consultees and to ensure that forest developments on the ground are appropriate and well-designed. In consequence, the WEAG report highlights the need for a new approach to strategic planning that can, for example, provide greater certainty to applicants as to whether their proposals will be successful or not, speed up the application process, account for cumulative impacts / land use balance issues and provide for the engagement of all relevant stakeholders. The WEAG acknowledge that one possible approach for delivering these benefits is to supplement the existing regional scale FWS process with sub-regional analyses of woodland expansion constraints and opportunities. Given the issues described above, this more granular analysis may provide an opportunity to better engage ‘bottom-up’ stakeholders and analyse fine scale constraints at a more meaningful scale (e.g. catchment to land holding scale). The WEAG subsequently recommended that sub-regional forest planning approaches should be piloted (see Box 2). The sub-regional pilots recommended by the WEAG are the subject of this evaluation project which aims to inform future policy and practice in sub-regional forest planning, supporting the strategic objectives of Scotland’s Land Use Strategy – the LUS (see section 1.1). Further details of the three pilot projects is set out at section 2.1. Box 2. WEAG Recommendation No.4 – Sub-regional analysis12 Sub-regional analysis of woodland creation constraints and opportunities should be undertaken through a series of pilot projects across Scotland, with a view to rolling out this approach more widely in future. These pilots, led by local authorities working in partnership with appropriate Government bodies, should develop analyses which: Provide clarity to applicants and Forest Enterprise Scotland about woodland creation opportunities and constraints in the context of other land-based objectives Help reduce delays and uncertainty in the application process, and ensure that applicants know at an early stage what information, surveys and mitigation they will need to provide Can take account of changing circumstances and cumulative impacts Engage with a broad range of land use interests, specifically including agricultural interests, and with existing processes such as river basin and flood risk management planning Provide a potential framework for targeting grants Maintain the clear democratic link, via the Forestry and Woodland Strategy, to the local authority, and via the Land Use Strategy to the Scottish Government The central role of the Land Use Strategy Scotland’s first Land Use Strategy13 (LUS) was published in 2011. Whilst it was a requirement of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act (2009), it is also a direct response to the widespread consensus that Scotland’s land is not performing as best as it could14. The issues and constraints for forest development outlined above are a case in point – we are placing continued, increasing and
12 Report of the Woodland Expansion Advisory Group (WEAG, 2012): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/WEAGFinalReport.pdf [accessed 30/07/14] 13 Getting the best from our land – a land use strategy for Scotland (Scottish Government, 2011): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/345946/0115155.pdf [accessed 14/01/15] 14 Land Use Strategy (LUS) Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 6 Final Report March 2015 sometimes competing demands on land to provide a broad range of benefits but without a clear mechanism that can deliver the more integrated patterns of land use that will be required. The LUS is a direct response to these issues by setting out a clear agenda for sustainable land use based around a long term vision to 2050 that would see: “A Scotland where we fully recognise, understand and value the importance of land resources, and where our plans and decisions about land use deliver improved and enduring benefits, enhancing the wellbeing of our nation” (Scottish Government, 2011 p.3). Table 1: Land Use Strategy objectives and Principles for sustainable land use Note: The LUS Principle abbreviations in the left-hand column were developed as part of the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project15 to help streamline text in the Final Report. The same abbreviation has been adopted throughout this report also. Abbreviated LUS Principle Full LUS Principle LUS Objectives: Land based businesses working with nature to contribute more to Scotland’s prosperity Responsible stewardship of Scotland’s natural resources delivering more benefits to Scotland’s people Urban and rural communities better connected to the land, with more people enjoying the land and positively influencing land use A. Multiple benefits A. Opportunities for land use to deliver multiple benefits should be encouraged B. Regulation B. Regulation should continue to protect essential public interests whilst placing as light a burden on businesses as is consistent with achieving its purpose. Incentives should be efficient and cost-effective C. Primary use C. Where land is highly suitable for a primary use (for example food production, flood management, water catchment management and carbon storage) this value should be recognised in decision-making D. Ecosystem services D. Land use decisions should be informed by an understanding of the functioning of the ecosystems which they affect in order to maintain the benefits of the ecosystem services which they provide E. Landscape change E. Landscape change should be managed positively and sympathetically, considering the implications of change at a scale appropriate to the landscape in question, given that all Scotland’s landscapes are important to our sense of identity and to our individual and social wellbeing F. Climate change F. Land-use decisions should be informed by an understanding of the opportunities and threats brought about by the changing climate. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with land use should be reduced and land should continue to contribute to delivering climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives G. Vacant and derelict land G. Where land has ceased to fulfil a useful function because it is derelict or vacant, this represents a significant loss of economic potential and amenity for the community concerned. It should be a priority to examine options for restoring all such land to economic, social or environmentally productive uses H. Outdoor recreation and H. Outdoor recreation opportunities and public access to land should be access encouraged, along with the provision of accessible green space close to where people live, given their importance for health and well-being I. Involving people I. People should have opportunities to contribute to debates and decisions about land use and management decisions which affect their lives and their future J. Land use and the daily J. Opportunities to broaden our understanding of the links between land living link use and daily living should be encouraged
The LUS’ overarching vision is supported by three strategic objectives and ten principles for sustainable land use – the LUS Principles (see Table 1). The Scottish Government anticipate that the
15 Land Use Strategy (LUS) Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 7 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principles will be used as a guide by all those involved in planning the future use and management of land in Scotland. The LUS is currently being reviewed and the second LUS (LUS2) will be published in 2016. The Scottish Government’s rationale for the current LUS however is that the ten LUS Principles will provide the key mechanism by which the strategic intent of the national level LUS is translated into regional and local level planning and decision-making, through the range of existing land use delivery mechanisms16 in Scotland. This would negate the need for a new mechanism and the additional resource burden and regulation this may incur17. Crucially, these existing land use delivery mechanisms include Forestry and Woodland Strategies (FWS) and other forest planning approaches such as the sub-regional pilots that are the subject of this evaluation. In essence, regional FWS and sub-regional forest planning approaches should be taking steps to integrate the ten LUS Principles at the policy level, supporting sustainable land use / management decision-making that translates the LUS Principles into action on the ground helping to deliver the national level LUS’ vision and objectives18. In this regard, the LUS Principles provide a crucial part of the framework for evaluating the sub-regional pilots, as per the objectives in Box 1.
16 A list of example land use delivery mechanisms can be found at Table 1.2 in the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014) 17 Though the Scottish Government are currently piloting a regional land use framework (LUF) mechanism in Aberdeenshire and the Scottish Borders to inform the development of LUS2: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Countryside/Landusestrategy/regional [accessed 14/01/15] 18 The two FWS case studies considered in the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project were found to have integrated eight of the ten LUS Principles fully at the policy level – see paragraph 3.55 onwards in the Main Report document (Phillips et al, 2014)
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 8 Final Report March 2015
2. Methodology
The evaluation of the LUS Forestry-Focussed Sub-Regional Pilot Studies – the sub-regional pilots – is intended to provide an independent and informed observation of the pilots, in line with the objectives of the evaluation set out at Box 1. This type of policy or practice evaluation observes what has actually happened or is happening following the implementation of a policy or practice (rather than what was expected or intended) and is an important part of the policy or practice-development cycle. As explained at section 1.1, the evaluation findings will inform future policy and practice in sub-regional forest planning, supporting the strategic objectives of Scotland’s Land Use Strategy.
2.1 Introduction to the sub-regional pilots As explained in Chapter 1, the three LUS forestry focussed sub-regional pilot studies are a direct recommendation from the 2012 WEAG report (see Box 2). The three pilots were identified by FCS through discussion with relevant stakeholders. This section briefly introduces each of the pilots. Cowal FCS describe the Cowal pilot thus: “In Cowal peninsula we have worked closely with the council to provide detailed guidance on potential for further opportunities for woodland creation in the context of other land uses, taking into account of changing circumstances and cumulative impact. The farming communities sought reassurance on being engaged in the decision-making process, recognising the importance of maintaining a productive forest estate in the region to support the rural economy and continue to secure employment without detriment to the other sectors, particularly the remaining farming sector. The development of the analysis secured the engagement with a broad range of land use interests encouraging a strategic approach to land use planning and to secure, after due process and debate, well-designed productive woodland which was properly designed and located” (FCS, undated19) The Cowal peninsula is located in south-west Scotland and forms the western side of the Firth of Clyde. The peninsula lies primarily within the jurisdiction of Argyll and Bute Council although the north-eastern portion of the peninsula falls within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (LLTNP). The peninsula is heavily forested (47% of the land area) and is subject to a range of additional constraints to further forest development and / or restocking e.g. presence of deep peat, high ground , waterbodies and settlements20 (see Figure 1). The Cowal pilot is focussed on a study and report21 commissioned by FCS that was finalised in September 2013. The study involved a Right Tree Right Place22 (RTRP) type spatial analysis to assess strategic constraints and opportunities for forest development. This was supported by stakeholder engagement (including individual and group meetings) to scope out local level issues for consideration in forest planning and to help form a view as to whether or not there is capacity for further forest development on Cowal.
19 Description taken from the FCS request for quote document / brief provided for the Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Sub-Regional Pilot Studies project 20 Cowal Sub-Regional Analysis of Woodland Creation Potential (Thomas,2013) [not available online] 21 Ibid 22 The Right Tree in the Right Place: Planning for Forestry and Woodlands (FCS, 2010): http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcfc129.pdf/$FILE/fcfc129.pdf [accessed 30/07/14]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 9 Final Report March 2015
Figure 1: Existing forest cover and woodland expansion constraints on Cowal (Source: Thomas, 2013). Note: The left-hand map shows existing forest cover (green) and other constraints to forest development including high ground (purple). The right-hand map shows potential woodland loss at restocking due to various constraints including deep peat (red). Dumfries and Galloway Forest and Woodland Strategy (FWS) FCS describe the Dumfries and Galloway FWS pilot thus: “In Dumfries and Galloway, FCS and the local council have developed landscape-scale opportunities maps to guide woodland creation, as part of the regional Forestry and Woodland Strategy. This is based on a two-tier approach that includes the assessment of different types of woodland in the local landscape and a qualitative assessment of woodland expansion based on sub-regional analysis. The developed catchment-level guidance intends to identify specific opportunities and challenges to woodland creation in different parts of the region” (FCS, undated23)
23 Description taken from the FCS request for quote document / brief provided for the Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Sub-Regional Pilot Studies project
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 10 Final Report March 2015
The Dumfries and Galloway (D&G) Local Authority area is located in south-west Scotland bordering England at the Solway Firth. Forested land makes up approximately 31% of the total D&G area24 which, whilst less than Cowal (see above), is still higher than the current Scottish average of 18%25. The D&G pilot has broken the Local Authority area down into seven discrete sub-regions (see Figure 2 above). Specific local policy has then been developed for each of these sub-regions to improve planning at this scale by outlining the specific local issues that applicants will need to consider in their woodland creation proposals. Flow Country FCS describe the Flow Country pilot thus: “In Caithness and Sutherland, FCS, SNH and The Highland Council are working together to plan strategically the removal of woodland from open habitats in the Flow Country and the creation of other woodland that meets local and national objectives. A wide range of stakeholders (including RSPB) are involved in the development and implementation of this project. The project has been run for a number of years and it is currently still on-going” (FCS, undated26) The Flow Country pilot is located in far north Scotland in Caithness and Sutherland. Of the three pilots, the Flow Country was the most challenging to define for the purposes of the evaluation. On discussion with local FCS personnel and other stakeholders during the interviews at Stage 3 (see section 2.2), it became evident that an appropriate focus for the Flow Country pilot would be issues surrounding the strategic removal of 1980s productive conifer forestry in order to support the restoration and enhancement of high conservation importance peatland habitats, designated at the European level27 as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and / or Special Protection Areas (SPA). Furthermore, this work in the Flows is supported by existing partnerships, landscape planning tools and local level FCS guidance and decision-making processes that provide the basis for sub-regional forest planning in the area. In this manner, we have been able to loosely define the scope of the Flow Country pilot in terms of its geography (see Figure 3 below) and content / focus. The key focus of the Flow Country pilot for the purposes of evaluation is: (1) the use of a bespoke landscape scale conservation planning tool as strategic planning guidance to identify where woodland removal land use change should potentially take place28; (2) the use of national29 and local30 FCS guidance to inform the work of local forest managers preparing Forest Plans; and (3) the
24 Dumfries and Galloway Forestry and Woodland Strategy (D&G Council, 2014): http://www.dumgal.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=15086&p=0 [accessed 07/01/15] 25 Forestry Statistics 2014 (FC, 2014): http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/ForestryStatistics2014.pdf/$FILE/ForestryStatistics2014.pdf [accessed 15/01/15] 26 Description taken from the FCS request for quote document / brief provided for the Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Sub-Regional Pilot Studies project 27 SNH Natura sites and the Habitats and Birds Directives pages: http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands- nature/protected-areas/international-designations/natura-sites/ [accessed 24/10/14] 28 This strategic planning guidance was produced as a result of a study described in Wilson et al (2013) – Modelling edge effects of mature forest plantations on peatland waders to inform landscape scale conservation. The outputs of the study are two maps identifying where woodland removal will deliver the biggest benefit to the statutory SPA / SAC conservation interests. These maps are known to local stakeholders as the ‘traffic lights’ or ‘edge effect’ maps. The Wilson et al (2013) paper is available here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12173/abstract [accessed 20/10/14] 29 Supplementary guidance to support the FC Forests and Peatland Habitats Guidance Note 2000 (FCS, 2014) [not available online] 30 Guidance to Forest Managers preparing Forest Plans within the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SAC / SPA (FCS, 2013) [not available online]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 11 Final Report March 2015 interaction of strategic and site level planning and assessment informing practical land use / management decision-making through Forest Plans and statutory processes regulated by FCS.
Figure 3: Geographical scope of the Flow Country pilot project (FCS, undated). Note: the Figure above depicts a number of sub-regional geographies (red polygons) that were used by FCS and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) in some earlier sub-regional forest planning work in the Highlands Conservancy area. For the purposes of this evaluation project, the geographical scope of the Flow Country pilot has been loosely defined as the area on the Figure shown as ‘3 Peatlands’.
2.2 The overall approach The overall approach to the evaluation is illustrated on the figure opposite. The key focus is the evaluation framework and the three sub-regional pilots. The evaluation framework (depicted in the centre of the figure opposite) defines the objectives and questions that need to be addressed. In effect, this sets the framework for all subsequent research tasks i.e. all data collection and analysis activities have been designed to answer the specific research questions set by the evaluation framework. The nature of the three pilots also plays a key role determining the most appropriate data collection and analysis methods. In particular, the type of data available and the stakeholders involved in the pilots have determined the data collection methods used – i.e. document review and semi-structured interviews. The evaluation has been delivered through seven main stages. Data collection and analysis has been ongoing and iterative throughout these stages. The scope and activity for each stage is summarised below: Stage 1: Development and refinement of the evaluation methodology [July 2014] – this stage focussed on refining the outline methodology presented in CEP’s proposal to FCS. This involved further familiarisation with the evaluation context (see section 1.3) to help define the scope – e.g. defining the purpose and objectives of sub-regional planning as per
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 12 Final Report March 2015
WEAG recommendation No.4 (see Box 2). This process also helped to identify possible overlaps within the FCS’ original evaluation objectives, leading to the development of a final, rationalised suite of objectives (see Box 1). Stage 1 also developed the evaluation framework (a suite of evaluation questions and sub-questions based on the objectives – see section 2.5) as well as criteria for the document review (see section 2.3)31. Stage 2: Document review [September – October 2014] – this was the first data collection stage. Key documents related to each of the sub-regional pilots were assessed using review criteria developed at Stage 1. The document review helped to identify, for example, where and how the pilots were integrating LUS Principles at the policy level and the types of method and approach used by the pilots to develop their land use / management planning frameworks and integrate the LUS Principles. Stage 3: Develop interview schedules and undertake face-to-face interviews [September – October 2014] – semi-structured interviews with relevant forest planning stakeholders were undertaken to collate qualitative data. Interview schedules were developed based on the evaluation objectives and questions and the initial findings from the document review stage (see above) – e.g. an initial understanding of the types of method and approach that may be particularly relevant for sub-regional forest planning. Stage 4: Initial data analysis [October 2014] – a sample of the dataset developed through the document review (Stage 2) and interview (Stage 3) stages was analysed to draw out emerging key themes from the evaluation, in line with the objectives and questions in the evaluation framework (see section 2.5). These themes were then outlined in the Progress Report. Stage 5: Progress Report [October 2014] – a Progress Report32 was prepared in October 2014 drawing on the data collection and analysis activities undertaken to date and the emerging key themes identified (see Stage 4). The Progress Report provided a means to update the FCS Project Manager on the broad direction of the evaluation and highlight any issues or risks for consideration in the final stages of the evaluation project. Stage 6: Finalise data analysis [November – December 2014] – informed by discussions with the FCS Project Manager at Stage 5, this stage finalised the data analysis. Stage 6 data analysis was comprehensive, considering the full dataset for each of the pilots in terms of: (1) analysis of key themes for sub-regional forest planning; and (2) a specific analysis to answer Evaluation Question No.2 which considers the degree to which the pilots have integrated the LUS Principles (see sections 2.4 and 2.5). Stage 7: Final Report [January – February 2015] – drafting this Final Report as the primary mechanism for disseminating the results of the evaluation and informing future policy and practice in sub-regional forest planning, supporting the delivery of the LUS.
2.3 Data collection methods used in the evaluation Document review A document review process was undertaken in Stage 2 of the evaluation (see section 2.2) using review criteria to collate relevant data. The criteria for the review were based on: (1) the evaluation objectives and questions set out in the evaluation framework (see section 2.5); and (2) relevant land use planning issues (e.g. methods and approaches, key barriers and challenges etc) identified in the
31 Stage 1 outcomes were documented in a note to FCS entitled: Note on Task 1 – Development and refinement of research methodology (available on request) 32 Evaluation of the Land Use Strategy (LUS) Forestry Focussed Sub-Regional Pilot Studies – Progress Report (available on request)
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 13 Final Report March 2015
LUS Delivery Evaluation Project33. In this regard, the document review was able to collate a range of data that helped to answer most of the evaluation questions, especially Evaluation Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 5 (see section 2.5). The full schedule of document review criteria is provided at Appendix 1. A list of the documents reviewed for each pilot is shown at Table 2 below. Table 2: Data collation activities undertaken in the evaluation Pilot Documents reviewed Stakeholder interviews undertaken Cowal Cowal Sub-Regional Analysis of Woodland FCS Conservator, Perth & Argyll Conservancy Creation Potential – report to FCS by Ian Senior Planner, Argyll & Bute Council Thomas (2013) Land Use Manager, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Dumfries and Dumfries and Galloway Forestry and Senior Planner & Landscape Architect, Galloway Woodland Strategy (Dumfries and Galloway Dumfries and Galloway Council Council, 2014) FCS Conservator, South Scotland Conservancy Area Manager, SNH Operations Officer, SEPA Flow Country Guidance to Forest Managers preparing Site Manager, RSPB Forest Plans within the Caithness and Senior Conservation Manager & Peatland Sutherland Peatlands SAC / SPA (FCS, 2013) Conservation Specialist, RSPB Supplementary guidance to support the FC FCS Conservator, Highlands and Islands Forests and Peatland Habitats Guidance Conservancy Note (2000) (FCS, 2014) Unit Manager, SNH Guidance on Forest Edge Effects: Approach to Casework (SNH, 2014) Senior Forest Manager, private land owner
Semi-structured interviews Semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders were undertaken at Stage 3 (see section 2.2). A schedule of the interviews undertaken is shown at Table 2. The intention of the interview process was to collate broad qualitative data that could help answer all five Research Questions (see section 2.5). As such, the interviews were semi-structured in nature to facilitate a more open dialogue with the participants and to ensure that a rich dataset could be developed. An interview schedule was developed, one for ‘process’ stakeholders (those involved in the development of the pilot project frameworks) and one for ‘outcome’ stakeholders (those whose woodland creation applications / Forest Plans will be tested against the frameworks)34. The overall structure of the process stakeholder interview schedule is shown below as an example: 1. Developing the pilot frameworks (process) and mechanisms for influencing land use / management decision-making – considered the process involved in the development of the pilot project, how this might differ from regional scale planning and mechanisms by which the pilot can inform practical decision-making on the ground 2. Relevance of the Land Use Strategy (LUS) Principles – the relevance of each LUS Principle to the pilot using key prompts and examples to tease out implicit consideration 3. Pilot framework influencing land use / management decision-making – identifies practical examples of where woodland creation applications / Forest Plans have been tested against the pilot framework
33 Land Use Strategy (LUS) Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15] 34 In reality it was hard to identify suitable ‘outcome’ stakeholders to interview as there were few woodland creation application cases that had been tested against the pilot frameworks
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 14 Final Report March 2015
4. Costs and benefits of the pilot frameworks – explores costs and benefits of the pilot frameworks and identifies criteria that could help to prioritise the use of sub-regional approaches elsewhere 5. Strengths and weaknesses of the pilot framework – teases out strengths, weaknesses and aspects of good-practice that could be considered in sub-regional planning elsewhere
2.4 Data analysis methods used in the evaluation Analysis of qualitative data The analysis of qualitative data collated through the evaluation was undertaken using a formal coding process. Coding is a process for categorising qualitative data (such as data from semi- structured interviews) and for describing the implications and details of these categories. In the context of this evaluation project, categories identified from the coded data have been framed as themes for sub-regional forest planning. Within these themes are a broad range of discrete issues (codes) that relate to one or more of the evaluation project’s specific evaluation objectives / questions. These, in essence, are specific / detailed aspects of sub-regional forest planning. Individual steps adopted in the analysis of qualitative data are as follows: 1. Develop ‘pre-determined’ codes (PC) from the research objectives / questions and document review evaluation criteria (full schedule of PC codes provided at Appendix 2) a. Categorise PC codes by headline evaluation question (see section 2.5) 2. Review data from document review and interviews (see section 2.3) a. Identify where PC codes are evidenced in the data b. Make notes on possible additional ‘data-led’ codes (DL) evidenced in the data 3. Collate a list of PC codes and all possible DL codes a. Cluster PC and DL codes into similar ideas / topics b. Identify where codes align to an existing theoretical model, practice or relevant literature / policy / guidance (e.g. methods / approaches and barriers identified in the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project35) c. Identify unusual or unexpected codes 4. Review clustered PC and DL codes and identify categories / themes 5. Collate categories / themes and codes in a ‘code book’ An example of collated categories / themes and codes from the ‘code book’ is provided at Table 3. Chapter 3 presents the results of the theme based analysis undertaken in the evaluation, describing the important aspects of sub-regional forest planning that the themes represent. The specific / detailed aspects of sub-regional forest planning represented within the discrete issues (codes) have been used in the pilot specific Chapters (Chapters 4, 5 and 6) to help answer the questions and sub- questions detailed in the evaluation framework (see section 2.5). Evaluating integration of LUS Principles within the pilot frameworks Evaluation Question No.2 asks do the pilot projects have the potential to guide local level land use decision-making to help meet the overall objectives of the LUS? The LUS Delivery Evaluation Project asked a similar question and developed a specific analysis approach to provide answers. This
35 Land Use Strategy (LUS) Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 15 Final Report March 2015 approach proved to be very effective and has subsequently been adopted in this evaluation to assess the degree to which the sub-regional forest planning pilots have integrated the ten LUS Principles (see Table 1) with their policies and frameworks. Table 3: Example categories / themes and codes from the qualitative analysis Theme / category Codes Theme 1: Overall approach to DL2_Integration of social & natural science methodologies [problem] forest planning DL3_Tiered approach to land use planning DL4_Pilot does not enhance regional FWS [problem] DL5_Overly complex / inflexible processes [problem] DL6_Robust approach perception issues [problem] Theme 2: Interaction DL18_Overlap between regional and sub-regional tasks between planning scales DL19_Importance of site level assessment for case work DL20_Interaction between regional and sub-regional planning issues DL21_Primacy of FWS strategic focus Theme 3: Defining DL22_Management units defined by natural features management unit DL23_Rationale for sub-regional geographies geographies
The analysis approach is described in detail in the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report36 and readers should refer to this for a comprehensive explanation of the approach. In summary however, the approach imposes evaluation criteria on the various data and evidence collated during the evaluation (see section 2.3) to understand the degree to which the LUS Principles have been integrated at the policy level (process issues) and then translated into decision-making (outcome issues). The evaluation criteria are included at Appendix 3. The use of criteria in this regard supports an understanding of the degree to which the LUS Principles have been integrated / translated – i.e. full integration / translation requires all criteria to be met. A four point scale was used as follows: Principle integrated / translated fully – YES Principle integrated / translated partially – TO A DEGREE Principle not integrated / translated – NO Principle not relevant to the pilot context – N/A
2.5 The evaluation framework The evaluation framework comprises a suite of headline / sub Evaluation Questions. These questions are based primarily on the evaluation objectives detailed at Box 1 (the headline questions link directly to the evaluation objectives) though the more detailed sub-questions have been designed to tease out an understanding of specific issues of relevance to sub-regional forest planning e.g. the stakeholder engagement approach adopted, the role of partnership working, specific tools and methods used to develop the pilot frameworks, specific costs and benefits etc. The full suite of Evaluation Questions that make up the evaluation framework are shown below in Table 4. The qualitative data collated and analysed during the evaluation (see sections 2.3 and 2.4) provides the input to the evaluation framework, which provides the structure for the analysis and presentation of this data in subsequent Chapters of this report.
36 See paragraphs 3.3 to 3.13 in Phillips et al (2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 16 Final Report March 2015
Table 4: Evaluation questions and sub-questions – the evaluation framework Headline questions Sub-questions 1. What processes have been What methods and approaches have the pilots used to develop their followed in the development frameworks and integrate / apply the LUS Principles? of the three pilot projects? How were stakeholders involved in the project? Was there a lead stakeholder? Which other stakeholders were involved? What role (if any) did partnership working play? Was a formal partnership agreement put in place? 2. Do the pilot projects have the How relevant are the LUS Principles to the pilots? potential to guide local level Is there evidence that the LUS Principles have been integrated with land use decision-making to the pilot project frameworks (implicitly or explicitly)? help meet the overall How effectively / to what degree have the pilot project frameworks objectives of the LUS? integrated the LUS Principles? 3. Is there any evidence that the How relevant are the LUS Principles to projects that have been pilot projects have influenced approved / supported under the auspices of the pilots? local level land use decision- Is there evidence that LUS Principles considered at the framework making to help meet the level have been translated into decisions on the ground / at the overall objectives of the LUS? project level? How effectively / to what degree have the LUS Principles been integrated with projects that have been approved / supported under the auspices of the pilots? 4. Do the costs associated with What are the costs (e.g. financial, person days etc) associated with developing the pilot project developing the pilot project frameworks? frameworks justify the How might costs differ dependent on approach, scale, stakeholder benefits? involvement, partnership working etc? What are the benefits (e.g. identifying planting opportunities supporting woodland expansion) of the pilot project frameworks from the perspective of different key stakeholders? In qualitative terms, do the benefits of the pilot outweigh the costs? 5. What strengths, weaknesses What methods and approaches can be identified from the pilots as and elements of good- working well and can the reasons for this be identified? practice can be identified What methods and approaches can be identified from the pilots as from the pilot project working less well and can the reasons for this be identified? frameworks? From the experiences of the individual pilots, are there successful aspects that might be applied more generally in sub-regional approaches to multifunctional forest planning across Scotland? Are there any key barriers to the application of the LUS Principles in sub-regional forest planning? What are the main weaknesses or drawbacks in the approaches adopted by the three pilots? Where barriers, weaknesses and drawbacks have been identified, what are likely reasons and potential solutions?
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 17 Final Report March 2015
3. Identifying themes for sub-regional forest planning
The analysis of qualitative data collected during the evaluation identified some nineteen key themes (see section 2.4). In essence, each theme represents a potentially important aspect of sub-regional forest planning that could be considered in the development of future policy and practice. In this regard, the themes have been used to help structure the rest of the evaluation as documented in Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7.
3.1 Sub-regional forest planning themes The analysis approach adopted in the identification of sub-regional forest planning themes is described at section 2.4. The identification of categories / themes in this manner can facilitate a quantitative analysis of qualitative data – i.e. it is possible to quantify theme occurrence within the dataset. This in turn helps us to understand the relative importance of different aspects of sub- regional forest planning for the pilots (see section 3.2) and for different stakeholders (see section 3.3). The nineteen sub-regional forest planning themes identified are outlined in Table 5. Table 5: Sub-regional forest planning themes identified through the evaluation Theme Description 1. Overall approach to General or non-detailed planning considerations reflecting the overall approach forest planning adopted by the pilots. Specific technical / detailed aspects of sub-regional forest planning are picked up by other themes e.g. Theme 4 on methods / approaches and Theme 17 on stakeholder engagement 2. Interaction between Issues describing process interactions between planning scales e.g. overlaps planning scales between regional planning as per Forestry and Woodland Strategies (FWS) and sub-regional planning as per the pilots 3. Defining Approaches for defining sub-regional areas for management purposes e.g. management unit delineation based on natural features such as water catchments and distinct geographies areas of landscape / Landscape Character Types (LCTs) 4. Tools and methods The use of specific tools, methods, techniques etc that have somehow supported the process of sub-regional forest planning. Example tools include ecosystem service assessment, spatial analysis and environmental assessment 5. Data and evidence Issues concerning the data and evidence required to underpin sub-regional forest planning and the various processes, tools and methods used therein (see Theme 4). Example issues include the use of non-standard datasets, absence of sufficiently granular data for sub-regional analysis and the practical use of local knowledge supporting forest planning activities 6. Guidance / policy / Data and evidence as per Theme 5 is one key input to sub-regional forest good-practice inputs planning processes. Theme 6 captures additional, non-data inputs in terms of to sub-regional specific guidance and policy as well as good-practice from elsewhere planning 7. Mechanisms The various means by which sub-regional forest plans can be translated into practical land management action on the ground (i.e. the various processes by which a desired land use strategy is delivered through the practical actions of land use / management stakeholders on the ground) and some of the key problems related to this 8. Timescale issues Problems and issues caused by lengthy planning processes and the implications of this for the delivery of a desired land use strategy e.g. timescale issues associated with democratic Local Authority processes and the length of time required to build consensus 9. Rationale for sub- Identifies why a sub-regional approach to the analysis and planning of forest regional analysis land use has been adopted by the pilots (has some links to Theme 3). Also
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 18 Final Report March 2015
Theme Description identifies criteria that could help other land use stakeholders prioritise the use of sub-regional approaches elsewhere 10. Costs and benefits of In primarily qualitative terms, this theme captures the main costs and benefits of sub-regional analysis the sub-regional pilots. Benefits are generally framed as key strengths of the pilots e.g. the pilot is not ‘bogged-down’ on analysis, the local relevance of the sub-regional approach and the effective use of consensus building as a mechanism for delivering a desired land use strategy 11. Land use balance Various issues concerning the importance of maintaining a balance between different land uses in a management area, such as a sub-regional geography used for forest planning. Example issues identified include existing land use balance pressures, qualitative vs. quantitative / masterplanned approaches to land use balance assessment and the importance of monitoring land use balance 12. Land use interactions Addresses the importance of integrated land use planning approaches in and integrated land delivering the objectives of the Land Use Strategy (LUS) and practical means by use planning which sub-regional forest planning can deliver aspects of integrated land use. Example issues identified include FWS as a proxy LUS, approaches that consider the wider land use impacts forestry and barriers to integrated land use planning 13. Land use conflicts Key land use conflicts between land management activities and between private and public objectives 14. Practical woodland Covers a range of practical constraints and opportunities to woodland creation creation identified at the sub-regional scale by the pilots opportunities and constraints 15. Partnerships and Various aspects of partnership working and governance arrangements as they governance relate to sub-regional forest planning e.g. partnership structure, role / function and membership issues, limited private sector involvement and the challenge of joint management with different objectives 16. Forest planning skills Identifies key skills that may be required / important for effective sub-regional forest planning e.g. the skills that may be required within Local Authorities to ensure effective input to sub-regional forest planning case work 17. Stakeholder Various aspects of stakeholder engagement approach, practice and problems as engagement they relate to sub-regional forest planning. Example issues identified include the use of stakeholder group meetings / workshops, key technical input from stakeholders, use of regional stakeholder forums and transparency of approach as a key strength of stakeholder engagement 18. Private asset value Key financial constraints and opportunities for private sector involvement in and revenue forest and wider land management e.g. possible revenue streams from less productive land and devaluing of private assets to deliver public objectives 19. External impacts / Captures the negative and positive impacts of external forces (market value of public grants and forest products and the subsidy regime) on land use choices incentives
3.2 Sub-regional forest planning themes – relevance to the pilots A quantitative analysis of the nineteen qualitative themes identified at section 3.1 has been undertaken to understand the relative importance of different aspects of sub-regional forest planning (i.e. the themes) across the whole dataset (all pilots) as well as for each individual pilot. From the perspective of policy and practice for sub-regional forest planning, this analysis can provide an insight into potential priorities for future development – e.g. which aspects of sub-regional planning have been identified as most important and could these / should these be a priority for future policy and practice development? Figure 4 shows the results of this analysis for the three
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 19 Final Report March 2015 pilots. Pilot specific charts are provided at Appendix 4. From an analysis of Figure 4 and the charts in Appendix 4, the following key findings have been identified: The availability of suitable mechanisms for translating a desired land use strategy into practical action on the ground is the most important issue for sub-regional forest planning: Theme 7 on mechanisms was the most frequently occurring theme across the datasets for all three pilots. This reflects the fundamental importance of linking land use policy to land management action on the ground, to ensure the delivery of a desired land use strategy. In particular, the evaluation interviews highlighted the following mechanism related issues: (1) an absence of suitable ‘stick’ based mechanisms for delivering rural land use (especially farming and forestry) means that there is an emphasis on consensus building. Consensus on land use policy is developed through partnership working and stakeholder engagement, including with the private sector. This mechanism is applicable to forest planning at regional and sub-regional scales; (2) at the sub-regional scale, the consensus reached is then captured through the development of more detailed local policy and schedules of local issues and opportunities for consideration in forest development. This increased detail provides a mechanism for expediting the woodland creation application / forest plan process e.g. by reducing the number of iterations between the applicant and FCS Conservancy staff before approval is granted; and (3) whilst there is a focus on consensus building as a key mechanism, the FCS application process provides a regulatory back-stop for forest planning, ensuring that proposals align to policies in regional and sub-regional forest plans. Key methodological aspects of sub-regional forest planning are important across all three pilots: Theme 4 on tools and methods, Theme 5 on data and evidence, Theme 15 on partnerships and governance and Theme 17 on stakeholder engagement have been identified consistently across all three pilots as medium-high importance issues for sub- regional forest planning. This is unsurprising given the practical importance of these issues in the development of robust sub-regional forest plans. For example, partnerships and governance and stakeholder engagement are critical given the focus on consensus building as the mechanism for driving forward a desired sub-regional forest plan (see above) – i.e. robust, comprehensive approaches to stakeholder engagement and partnership working are likely to be prerequisites for developing consensus. This is evidenced, for example, through the use of highly structured stakeholder engagement approaches in the Dumfries and Galloway (see Chapter 5) and Flow Country (see Chapter 6) pilots and in the D&G pilot’s innovative approach to partnership working, with separate working group (WG) and stakeholder group (SG) structures to ensure streamlined decision-making within the more focussed WG whilst ensuring wider stakeholders have an opportunity to input through the SG. The role of sub-regional forest planning contributing to the delivery of integrated land use is an important issue for all three pilots: Theme 12 on land use interactions and integrated land use planning is a medium to high importance issue for all three pilots. In essence, this aspect of sub-regional forest planning ensures that due consideration is given to the wider land use impacts of forestry, especially in relation to maintaining a desirable land use balance within the management area (see Theme 11). In some instances it was felt that regional FWS and sub-regional forest plans actually take on the role of an integrated land use framework37 (LUF) ‘by proxy’ through a comprehensive consideration of wider land use issues. A case in point is the Cowal pilot’s assessment of the wider land use impacts of forestry on hill and in-bye land and the potential
37 Such as the Scottish Government regional land use framework pilots: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Countryside/Landusestrategy/regional [accessed 15/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 20 Final Report March 2015
implications of this for the integrity of the remaining hill farming units on the peninsula. In this respect, whilst the pilot has a distinct focus on forestry (e.g. through the spatial analysis of woodland creation constraints), there is also consideration of integrated land use planning issues, supported by a more detailed understanding of local constraints and opportunities. Despite these strengths, stakeholders generally consider a fully integrated LUF type approach to be preferable given the more comprehensive treatment of wider land use objectives.
Figure 4: Sub-regional forest planning themes – occurrence across pilot data Note: the figure above shows the percentage occurrence of the nineteen sub-regional forest planning themes across the analysed pilot data (i.e. all analysed data pertaining to a given pilot). From a pilot perspective, the figure highlights the potential importance of different aspects of sub-regional forest planning.
Private asset issues are a priority in the Flows pilot: Theme 18 on private asset value and revenue is a high importance issue for the Flows pilot (the third most important – see Appendix 4). This reflects the highly specific nature of the Flows – i.e. the focus on woodland removal to restore high nature conservation value peatland habitats (see section 2.1 and Chapter 6). As such, the specific Theme 18 issues of relevance to the Flows relate to devaluing private assets to deliver public benefits (i.e. the removal of private forestry assets to restore peatland habitats for public objectives – nature conservation, carbon storage etc) but also possible revenue streams from less productive land e.g. support for private land owners accessing funding for peatland restoration through the
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 21 Final Report March 2015
Scotland Rural Development Programme38 (SRDP) where conventional restocking is not required and identifying alternative revenue streams from clear-fell land (sporting, carbon markets, avoidance of replanting costs on marginal forest land etc). Crucially, whilst woodland removal in the Flows is a contentious issue, consensus building is seen as the most important mechanism for delivering the desired land use strategy (although there are undoubtedly practical challenges building consensus given the conflicting objectives of different stakeholders – e.g. conservation vs. timber production).
3.3 Sub-regional forest planning themes – relevance to stakeholders A quantitative analysis of the nineteen qualitative themes identified at section 3.1 has been undertaken to understand the relative importance of different aspects of sub-regional forest planning (i.e. the themes) for the specific forest planning stakeholders engaged in the project: (1) Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS); (2) Local Authorities; (3) National Park Authorities; (4) Non- Governmental Organisations (NGOs); (5) environmental regulators; and (6) the private sector. Figure 5 shows the results of this analysis for all six stakeholder categories, noting that the evaluation research produced different amounts of data for the different stakeholder categories (e.g. interviews were undertaken with three different FCS Conservators whereas only one private sector stakeholder was interviewed). Stakeholder specific charts are provided at Appendix 5. Unsurprisingly, the key findings from the stakeholder specific analysis – in terms of the most important themes identified – broadly mirror the findings in the pilot specific analysis (i.e. the high importance themes in the pilot analysis are made up cumulatively of high importance themes from the stakeholder analysis). More specific key findings are as follows: Integrated land use planning is a high importance issue for FCS: Theme 12 on land use interactions and integrated land use planning has been identified as the second most important sub-regional forest planning issue for FCS (see Appendix 5), indicating that whilst FCS’ primary remit is forestry, wider land use issues are undoubtedly a key consideration. In particular, evaluation interviews with FCS personnel highlighted how good-practice forest planning (including at the sub-regional scale) has the potential to act as a ‘proxy integrated LUF’ but also that there is still a need for a more formal integrated land use mechanism at the regional scale (see section 3.2). There was also a suggestion that a more bottom-up approach to integrated land use could be beneficial through the use of Integrated Land Management Plans (ILMPs). Indeed it was even suggested that ILMPs could be made a requirement of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Pillar I support39 for land holdings over a certain size threshold, to ensure land use integration and delivery of multiple benefits at the holding scale. Furthermore, one interviewee drew attention to the shortcomings of the RTRP spatial analysis approach for delivering integrated land use as land use categories only identify where one could plant rather than where one should – i.e. planting up the entire ‘preferred’ area would likely work against land use integration by tipping land use balance too far in favour of forestry. Partnerships and governance issues are of high importance to Local Authorities and NGOs: Theme 15 on partnerships and governance has been identified as the second most important sub-regional forest planning issue for the Local Authorities and NGOs engaged in the evaluation (see Appendix 5). Local Authorities are the ‘owners’ of FWS and, as such, effective partnership working is particularly in their interest to ensure consensus amongst stakeholders and the development of a robust, high quality FWS. This may be particularly
38 Scottish Government SRDP pages: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP [accessed 15/01/15] 39 Scottish Government CAP pages: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/Agriculture/CAP [accessed 15/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 22 Final Report March 2015
relevant to sub-regional approaches given the greater reliance on local knowledge and the more diverse stakeholders involved (see Chapter 7). The importance of partnership working for Local Authorities was evidenced particularly in the D&G pilot which adopted a highly structured approach (see section 3.2). In particular, the wider partners involved in the D&G pilot’s formal working group were responsible for the development of specific sections of the FWS, including the sub-regional aspects. In the specific case of NGOs working within the Flow Country pilot, partnership working has been central to the development of sustainable land use practice for a number of years e.g. through the Peatland Partnership40, the Caithness and Sutherland peat management strategy41 and the Flow Country Science Group.
Figure 5: Sub-regional forest planning themes – occurrence across stakeholder data Note: the figure above shows the percentage occurrence of the nineteen sub-regional forest planning themes across the analysed stakeholder data (i.e. all analysed data pertaining to a given stakeholder). From a stakeholder perspective, the figure highlights the potential importance of different aspects of sub-regional forest planning.
Data and evidence is important for NGOs and private sector stakeholders in the Flows: Theme 5 on data and evidence is a high priority (joint fourth) sub-regional forest planning issue for the Flow Country based NGO and private sector stakeholders engaged in the
40 Peatlands Partnership pages: http://www.caithness.org/peatlands_partnership/ [accessed 14/01/15] 41 The Peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland Management Strategy 2005 – 2015 (SNH, 2005): http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/scottish/nhighland/PeatlandsStrategy.pdf [accessed 13/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 23 Final Report March 2015
evaluation (see Appendix 5). Crucially, data and evidence was not a high priority issue for any other stakeholder groups. Data is potentially such a critical issue for NGOs and private sector forestry interests in the Flows given the contentious nature of the land use changes its use supports and informs. In particular, modelled data on high conservation value peatland habitat restoration potential is the key dataset guiding woodland removal in the Flows. Although this data is the subject of a peer reviewed scientific paper42, there is still some contention about its use informing land management action that will result in the devaluing of private assets. This is compounded by data uncertainties within the modelling itself (e.g. the habitat characteristics of peatland SPA / SAC sites and the implications of this for restoration potential). Despite this, Theme 7 on mechanisms has been identified as the most important aspect of sub-regional forest planning by four of five stakeholders affected by the Flows pilot with a particular focus on consensus building (see section 3.2 and Appendix 4). In particular, the Flows pilot has mechanisms in place to ensure that local knowledge can input to the more strategic planning processes e.g. site visits with key stakeholders to ‘ground truth’ the modelled data discussed above. Asset value, revenue and wider economic issues are critical for private sector stakeholders: one evaluation interview was undertaken with a private sector stakeholder within the Flows pilot. Recognising the inherent limitations of this dataset (i.e. it would have been preferable to interview a broader range of private sector interests), key issues for private sector stakeholders include Theme 18 on private asset value and revenue and Theme 19 on external impacts / public grants and incentives. This highlights how the focus for private sector interests within sub-regional forest planning is very much on maximising asset value and revenue, within the constraints imposed by relevant policy and regulation i.e. the extant FWS or sub-regional forest plan (and associated FCS regulatory processes) and the UK Forestry Standard43 (UKFS). In the specific case of the Flows pilot there is a cost to the private sector associated with woodland removal to support the restoration of high nature conservation value peatland habitats i.e. devaluing private assets to deliver public benefits. This is a critical issue for private land owners (and their agents) as the revenue options from the forest area that is subsequently not restocked are limited. The evaluation interview highlighted the possibility of future carbon markets as a potential source of revenue from restored peatlands though current funding options are limited to a one-off grant (available through the SRDP44) to cover the cost of peatland restoration e.g. brash clearance, gully-blocking etc.
42 Modelling edge effects of mature forest plantations on peatland waders informs landscape scale conservation (Wilson et al, 2013): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12173/abstract [accessed 14/01/15] 43 UK Forestry Standard – the government’s approach to sustainable forestry (FC, 2011): http://www.forestry.gov.uk/theukforestrystandard [accessed 06/01/15] 44 Scottish Government SRDP pages: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP [accessed 15/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 24 Final Report March 2015
4. Cowal pilot – summary of evaluation results
This Chapter provides a summary of the various data collection and analysis activity undertaken in the Cowal pilot evaluation, structured around the key questions in the evaluation framework. The detailed evaluation of the degree to which the Cowal pilot has integrated the ten LUS Principles (Evaluation Question No.2) is documented in Appendix 6. The theme based analysis discussed in Chapter 3 highlights how important aspects of sub-regional forest planning for the Cowal pilot are focussed on mechanisms, tools / methods, rationale for sub-regional analysis, partnerships and governance, stakeholder engagement and land use interactions and integrated land use planning. The implications of this are discussed throughout this Chapter e.g. in terms of links between the Cowal pilot’s priority themes and the strengths and weaknesses of the pilot approach identified under Evaluation Question No.5.
4.1 Processes followed in the development of the Cowal pilot Methods used to develop the Cowal pilot framework / integrate LUS Principles Table 6 presents the key methods and approaches used to develop the Cowal pilot framework and integrate LUS Principles. A more detailed explanation is provided at Appendix 6 and some example methods are discussed further below. Table 6: Methods used in the development of the Cowal pilot framework Note: Where relevant the methods / approaches identified have been categorised on the basis of the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project method categorisation45. The table below also categorises the methods / approaches identified in terms of their relevance to the LUS Principles (see Table 1) and the sub-regional forest planning themes identified at section 3.1. Strongly Less strongly Relevant sub- Method / approach relevant LUS relevant LUS regional forest Principles Principles planning themes Key to LUS Principles: A = multiple benefits; B = regulation; C = primary use; D = ecosystem services; E = landscape change; F = climate change; G = vacant and derelict land; H = outdoor recreation and access; I = involving people; and J = land use and the daily living link. See Table 1 for full details of the LUS Principles. LUS Delivery Evaluation Project method category: spatial analysis 1. Specific spatial analysis technique to A, D, E, F and J C 4, 5, 11, 12, 14 and identify opportunity areas for agro- 18 forestry development (see LUS Principle A assessment in Appendix 6) 2. Specific spatial analysis technique to H and J A and C 4, 5 and 14 identify opportunity areas for community woodlands (see LUS Principle H assessment in Appendix 6) 3. Development of a map showing isolated A, C, D, E and H G 4, 5, 11, 12, 14 and islands of unused hill land that could be 18 better integrated through the restructuring of farm / forest holdings (see LUS Principle A assessment in Appendix 6) 4. Spatial analysis of forest development A, C, D, E and F H 4, 5, 6 and 13 constraints with reference to key policy (e.g. FCS peat policy46) and spatial datasets
45 See paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 in Phillips et al (2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15] 46 Supplementary guidance to support the FC Forest and Peatland Habitats Guidance Note 2000 (FCS, 2014): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/peatland-habitats-supplementary-guidance.pdf [accessed 05/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 25 Final Report March 2015
Strongly Less strongly Relevant sub- Method / approach relevant LUS relevant LUS regional forest Principles Principles planning themes Key to LUS Principles: A = multiple benefits; B = regulation; C = primary use; D = ecosystem services; E = landscape change; F = climate change; G = vacant and derelict land; H = outdoor recreation and access; I = involving people; and J = land use and the daily living link. See Table 1 for full details of the LUS Principles. for landscape and natural heritage designations (e.g. National Scenic Areas47) (see LUS Principle C assessment in Appendix 6) LUS Delivery Evaluation Project method category: partnerships and governance and engagement and awareness-raising 5. Developing a collated list of important All LUS N/A 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 sub-regional forest planning issues, Principles and 17 opportunities and constraints using a stakeholder engagement approach to build consensus (see LUS Principle A assessment in Appendix 6) 6. Critical use of site level assessment / FCS B C, D, E, F and H 2, 7 and 17 woodland creation application case work to validate issues identified through strategic forest planning (see LUS Principle C assessment in Appendix 6) LUS Delivery Evaluation Project method category: ecosystem services 7. Basic ecosystem service assessment using C, D, E and F A 4 and 5 constraints analysis data in line with a more general ‘ecosystem services philosophy’ approach48 (see LUS Principle D assessment in Appendix 6) Cowal pilot Method No.1 – the use of a specific spatial analysis technique to identify opportunity areas for agro-forestry: this method merges better quality agricultural land (e.g. winter grazings / in- bye land) with all other land associated with the holding (e.g. hill land / winter grazings and existing areas of forestry) to identify a single unit. This land parcel is then categorised as sensitive to all forms of forest development other than agro-forestry, which becomes the preferred land use category (see figure opposite). The approach ensures that better quality agricultural land (a limited resource on Cowal) is protected from inappropriate forest development whilst promoting appropriately designed mixed farm woodland. The approach can also help to identify opportunities for farm holding restructuring to deliver additional benefits e.g. by protecting / creating sheep passes through existing or proposed forestry to provide access between winter grazings (in-bye land) and summer grazings (hill land). Cowal pilot Method No.5 – Developing a collated list of important sub-regional forest planning issues, opportunities and constraints using a stakeholder engagement approach to build
47 SNH map of National Scenic Areas (SNH, undated): http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B691407.pdf [accessed 08/01/15] 48 Ecosystem services in environmental assessment – help or hindrance? (Baker et al, 2013): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925512000996 [accessed 05/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 26 Final Report March 2015 consensus: the Cowal pilot used a structured stakeholder engagement approach including 1-2-1 meetings and a large stakeholder group meeting / workshop to scope out sub-regional forest planning issues on the peninsula. Example issues identified include the location of: 1) small pockets of better quality agricultural land that should be reserved for farming or agro-forestry; 2) key landscape sensitive areas that may constrain forest development; and 3) pockets of fertile, well flushed peat soils (including >50cm depth) that could support robust tree growth49. Crucially, the approach also built consensus around these issues using the stakeholder group meeting / workshop. Important aspects of this method have, however, been identified as a key weakness of the Cowal pilot as discussed at section 4.5. Involvement of stakeholders in the Cowal pilot The main purpose of stakeholder engagement in the Cowal pilot was to identify local level forest planning issues and to build consensus on the main opportunities and constraints for further planting on the peninsula (see LUS Principle A assessment in Appendix 6). By building up a more detailed picture of forest planning issues at the sub-regional scale, the intention is to streamline woodland creation application / Forest Plan decision-making (see section 3.2 and LUS Principle B assessment in Appendix 6). The stakeholder engagement approach focussed on the use of 1-2-1 meetings with key stakeholders as well as a large stakeholder group meeting / workshop (see LUS Principle I assessment in Appendix 6). Crucially, the approach focussed very much on ‘technical’ stakeholders and the wider public and affected communities were not engaged in the pilot. Indeed the evaluation interviews highlighted this as a key weakness of the approach (see section 4.5), particularly in relation to the more contentious forest planning issues on Cowal (e.g. land use balance and the capacity for further woodland expansion) that would benefit from a thorough interrogation by a wider group of stakeholders. The FCS evaluation interview identified this as a key priority for improving the Cowal approach and suggested that a more bottom-up / community forestry focussed approach to forest planning could help to realise further planting opportunities on the peninsula (community forestry on Mull50 was referenced as a specific example of this approach in practice). The use of a regional level forum to advise on integrated land use issues was also identified as a priority though this is applicable to regional as well as sub-regional planning. Specific technical stakeholders that were engaged in the Cowal included the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA), Argyll and Bute Council (ABC), Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS), representative bodies (e.g. National Farmers Union Scotland, Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society), private sector forestry interests (UPM Tilhill), conservation groups (the Raptor Study Group) and various private land owners. Crucially, stakeholder representation covers a range of LUS Principle issues e.g. the LLTNPA and ABC representatives (a land use manager and senior planner respectively) provided a means to ensure that LUS Principle E / landscape issues were considered in the Cowal pilot including within practical forest planning considerations such as “adjusting the forest margin to reflect the ebb and flow of ridges and gullies to enhance landscape and reduce eagle conflicts” (Thomas, 2013 p.10). Whilst there are clear weaknesses to the Cowal pilot’s stakeholder engagement approach (see above and section 2.5), the evaluation interviews identified the technical stakeholder group meeting / workshop as a key strength. Interviewees highlighted how the meeting was well attended and well- structured through the use of presentations, workshops, feedback and review sessions and general discussion. Crucially, this meeting was seen to provide networking opportunities that might not have
49 Where ‘robust growth’ is defined as Yield Class 8 or above for Sitka spruce in line with the recently adopted Supplementary guidance to support the FC Forest and Peatland Habitats Guidance Note 2000 (FCS, 2014): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/peatland-habitats-supplementary-guidance.pdf [accessed 05/01/15] 50 North-West Mull Community Woodland Company (NMWCWC) Ltd homepage: http://nwmullwoodland.co.uk/ [accessed 16/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 27 Final Report March 2015 happened otherwise. In particular, useful discussions were held with Forest Enterprise Scotland (FES) exploring land use balance issues between open-ground habitats, forestry and better quality agricultural land and opportunities for restructuring FES land to facilitate better land use integration – e.g. maintaining and improving access between summer and winter grazings to support hill farming on the peninsula (see above and Table 6). The role of partnership working in the Cowal pilot A formal partnership approach was not adopted in the Cowal pilot and this may have contributed to some issues and problems with sub-regional forest planning. For example some stakeholders were asked to participate in the pilot as ‘full partners’ after the scope and brief had been developed, leaving these stakeholders with a more limited opportunity to shape the overall approach. Furthermore, forest planning issues on Cowal are particularly challenging, arguably making the case for a more formalised approach to partnership working in forest planning. In particular there is a need to work across administrative boundaries as a significant portion of north-east Cowal falls within the LLTNP (the remainder is within ABC’s jurisdiction). Crucially, many woodland expansion constraints have a higher significance within the National Park (e.g. landscape), an issue that is compounded by the inherent ‘fuzziness’ of forest development impacts on these constraints – i.e. landscape impacts occur at the landscape scale and do not stop at administrative boundaries. Given this, the absence of a more formalised approach to partnership working within the Cowal pilot could be considered as a weakness of the approach (see section 4.5).
4.2 Integration of LUS Principles in the Cowal pilot framework Appendix 6 provides a detailed assessment of the degree to which the Cowal pilot has integrated the ten LUS Principles within its policies and framework. This assessment was based on data from the document review and interviews with three Cowal forest planning stakeholders (see Table 2). As such, the assessment is illustrative only (i.e. not definitive) and should be read with this in mind. A summary of the assessment is illustrated below on Figure 6. It should also be noted that the Cowal pilot was not developed specifically with the LUS in mind – it was developed in response to specific concerns expressed by local farming communities in relation to being engaged in decision-making on woodland creation, in the context of other land uses. However, as a key land use delivery mechanism it should arguably be taking steps to consider and integrate the ten LUS Principles (see section 1.3). All of the LUS Principles were found to be relevant to the Cowal pilot with the exception of LUS Principle G on vacant and derelict land.
Key to integration of
LUS Principles within Multiple benefits Regulation Primary use Ecosystem services Landscape change Climate change Vacant & derelict land Outdoor & recreation access Involving people Land use & the linkdaily living
the pilot framework
A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Yes To a degree N/A No N/A N/A Figure 6: Cowal pilot – integration of LUS Principles within the pilot framework Note: The Figure above shows the degree to which the ten LUS Principles have been integrated within the Cowal pilot’s policy and framework (the LUS Principles are listed in full at Table 1). Summary details of the analysis approach adopted are provided at section 2.3 and in full within the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014).
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 28 Final Report March 2015
As shown on Figure 6, the Cowal pilot has only fully integrated two of the ten LUS Principles within its policy and framework – Principle C on primary use and Principle J on land use and the daily living link. All other principles have been integrated ‘to a degree’ with the exception of LUS Principle G on vacant and derelict land which is deemed to be non-applicable in this context (see LUS Principle G assessment in Appendix 6). Principle C on primary use has been ‘fully’ integrated owing to the Cowal pilot’s comprehensive assessment of primary land use issues and its use of specific tools and approaches to determine key areas of primary use e.g. spatial analysis of constraints (primary land uses) at the strategic scale and determination of more granular, local level constraints / primary land uses issues through stakeholder engagement. The assessment was also informed by relevant policy – e.g. using FCS peat policy51 as an input to spatial analysis to help determine areas of peatland primary land use as a constraint to for woodland expansion and restocking. Principle J on land use and the daily living link has been assessed as integrated ‘fully’ due to the pilot’s strong focus on supporting diversified land based enterprise on the peninsula (e.g. identifying opportunities for farm-forestry integration, identifying options for restructuring of farm holdings to provide opportunities for new entrants) and support for community forestry. In terms of Principles that have only been integrated ‘to a degree’, LUS Principle F on climate change is a particular issue given the LUS’ provenance within the Climate Change (Scotland) Act (2009). The Cowal pilot has limited consideration of climate change issues – the role of peat soils contributing to climate change mitigation is discussed implicitly though the focus here is very much on deep peat as a constraint to forest development rather than deep peat as an important carbon store. Crucially there is no explicit or implicit consideration of adaptation issues e.g. the adaptation within the forestry sector itself (increased yields, diseases and pests etc) or the potential role of forestry supporting adaptation in other sectors (e.g. contributing to sustainable flood risk management). This very much echoes the results of the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project where less than half of the case study land use delivery mechanisms were considered to have translated LUS Principle F fully52. LUS Principle B on regulation has been assessed as integrated ‘to a degree’ only as the very useful understanding of local level forest planning issues developed through the pilot has not been collated in a particularly structured or user friendly manner within the Cowal pilot project report53. Indeed it is unclear whether or not this report will be made available online, thereby limiting access.
4.3 The Cowal pilot’s influence on local level land use decision-making Within the scope of the evaluation project it was not possible to test Evaluation Question No.3 – is there any evidence that pilot projects have influenced local level land use decision-making to help meet the overall objectives of the LUS – as there were no woodland creation applications / Forest Plans to review that have been tested against the Cowal pilot framework. However the analysis discussed at section 4.2 and Appendix 6 indicates that all but one of the LUS Principles are relevant to the Cowal pilot and that the relevant Principles have been translated ‘to a degree’ in most instances. As such, one would expect any forest projects approved / supported under the auspices of the Cowal pilot to translate a range of LUS Principle issues, especially LUS Principle C on primary use and LUS Principle J on land use and the daily living link.
51 Supplementary guidance to support the FC Forest and Peatland Habitats Guidance Note 2000 (FCS, 2014): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/peatland-habitats-supplementary-guidance.pdf [accessed 05/01/15] 52 See paragraphs 3.21 and 3.22 in Phillips et al (2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15] 53 Cowal: Sub-regional Analysis of Woodland Creation Potential (Thomas, 2013) [not available online]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 29 Final Report March 2015
4.4 Costs and benefits of the Cowal pilot Costs associated with the Cowal pilot The evaluation interviews undertaken identified a number of specific costs associated with developing the Cowal pilot (see Table 7). Crucially the Cowal pilot was undertaken entirely separate from any regional scale FWS. This is in contrast to the Dumfries and Galloway pilot for example where the sub-regional element was subsumed within a more standard, regional FWS-development process (see section 5.4). Accordingly, the costs associated with the Cowal pilot are entirely stand- alone and are not part of any wider budget for the development of a regional scale FWS. The evaluation interview with Argyll and Bute Council (ABC) highlighted an important issue related to costs – the ongoing and worsening austerity / public sector budget cuts mean that resource availability within Local Authorities is limited. As a consequence, Local Authorities (and other public bodies) are being forced to strip back to core business activities only. In the context of this evaluation, planning departments may be more likely to focus on traditional Town and Country Planning case work with less attention paid to forestry i.e. responding to consultations on woodland creation proposals and Forest Plans. In the specific case of the Cowal pilot, this issue is compounded for ABC due to forest planning skills (Theme 16) related issues as the Council does not have a woodland or forestry officer meaning, therefore, that the remit for forestry consultations sits primarily with the planning department. The fact that the Cowal pilot is very much separate from the ABC FWS (and possibly not very user-friendly – see section 4.5) also means that officers may be less likely to factor it into any consultation response (i.e. any consultation response would be based on the regional FWS only). Indeed the Cowal pilot has not been through any committee process / formally adopted by ABC meaning that it has no statutory basis in development management as a material consideration (clearly this does not preclude its use as a basis for objecting to a forestry proposal but it may be less likely as a result). Table 7: Known costs associated with developing the Cowal pilot framework Note: The table below only includes data on known costs. There will undoubtedly be a range of additional costs that are unknown e.g. time input of all other stakeholder participants. Stakeholder Officer time (days) Direct costs (£) Forestry Commission Scotland Conservator: 4 £7,200 consultancy fees Other personnel: 2 Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Land Use Manager: 5 N/A Park Authority Benefits of the Cowal pilot There was a strong sense from the FCS evaluation interview that the pilot enhances regional scale planning and that the balance of costs and benefits is tipped very much in favour of benefits. Specific benefits identified through the evaluation interviews are: (1) the pilot’s focus on stakeholder engagement has helped to improve understanding of how forestry can help to fill the economic gap left by the decline in farming on Cowal; (2) consensus amongst stakeholders that Cowal can accommodate more forestry; and (3) greater opportunity for dialogue with stakeholders and networking on more detailed issues than would be the case with a regional scale FWS. All of these benefits are in some way related to woodland expansion opportunities – i.e. the clear benefit of the Cowal pilot is that it helps to make the case for further woodland expansion on the peninsula, in line with the WEAG’s rationale for sub-regional forest planning (see Box 2).
4.5 Strengths and weaknesses of the Cowal pilot Key strengths of the Cowal pilot and methods that are working well The evaluation interviews highlighted a number of key strengths associated with the Cowal pilot. These have been linked to specific methods and approaches utilised in the Cowal pilot (section 4.1
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 30 Final Report March 2015 and Table 6) to identify those methods that may be working well. In effect, where a specific strength identified by stakeholders can be linked to a method, the assumption is that the method will be working well. From an analysis of data from the evaluation interviews, the Cowal pilot’s main strengths are focussed on stakeholder engagement related issues. Specific key strengths and related methods are summarised below: The Cowal pilot approach is not ‘bogged-down’ on analysis and instead has a keen focus on stakeholder views: this strength can be linked to several of the methods and approaches utilised by the Cowal pilot which may be working well. In particular, the first three spatial analysis based methods in Table 6 (methods 1 – 3) all adopt practical approaches linked to readily available data producing highly accessible and potentially very useful outputs. For example the proposed map of isolated islands of unused hill land (Cowal method No.3) would require limited analysis and could potentially provide a useful input to land holding restructuring plans, supporting integrated land use. The focus on stakeholder views is likely to be a critical factor building consensus on local level forest planning issues (Cowal method No.5). The specific use of a large group meeting / workshop within the Cowal pilot’s stakeholder engagement activities: although there were limitations to stakeholder engagement in the Cowal pilot (see below), the engagement of technical stakeholders through the large meeting / workshop approach was considered to be a key strength. Effective stakeholder engagement in this regard (albeit with technical stakeholders only) is likely to be an important factor helping to build consensus on the key issues, opportunities and constraints for sub-regional forest planning (Cowal method No.5). Stakeholder meetings and workshops created an opportunity for networking and dialogue that might not otherwise have happened: similarly to the above, this is an important strength helping to build consensus on local planning issues through Cowal method No.5. Crucially this particular strength was also seen as an important means for identifying local issues, constraints and opportunities – e.g. discussions with FES to scope out possible options for restructuring public land, supporting integrated land use. Key weaknesses of the Cowal pilot and potential barriers to LUS delivery In addition to the strengths discussed above, there are also a number of key weaknesses and drawbacks to the Cowal pilot in terms of its potential to support woodland expansion and the delivery of integrated land use on the ground. These weaknesses / drawbacks can also act as barriers to the delivery of the LUS’ strategic objectives by constraining the integration and application of the LUS Principles. Where relevant, the discussion below links the weaknesses / drawbacks identified in the Cowal pilot evaluation to specific categories of barrier identified in the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project54. It should be noted however that the Cowal pilot was an inexpensive and low-key approach that was designed to address a highly specific local issue (i.e. concern amongst some stakeholders that there is too much forestry on Cowal) and was not intended to provide a substitute for a wider integrated LUS type approach. In this regard, the Cowal pilot also has a number of important strengths and benefits as outlined in the sub-section above. That said, the following key weaknesses / drawbacks of the Cowal pilot have been identified: The Cowal pilot final report is not particularly user-friendly and is not (currently) available online: whilst the Cowal pilot identifies a range of local level issues that can usefully inform sub-regional forest planning (see Cowal method No.5 in Table 6), the final report produced through the pilot does not collate these issues in a particularly structured manner. This weakness was highlighted variously in the evaluation interviews, for
54 See paragraphs 6.6 and 6.7 in Phillips et al (2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 31 Final Report March 2015
example: (1) the RTRP type maps are considered to be a blunt tool – having a more clearly collated schedule of sub-regional forest planning issues would help to articulate these maps at the local level. The Dumfries and Galloway FWS and Scottish Borders FWS approach to documenting sub-regional issues were identified as being particularly useful in this regard; (2) the fact that ABC have not formally adopted the Cowal pilot report / framework highlights its limitations as a practical policy tool; and (3) the Cowal pilot has been described as more of a ‘think piece’ as opposed to a strategy per se. External impacts can have unforeseen / unavoidable impacts on land use balance that are hard to plan for: land use is subject to the vagaries of market forces as global economic conditions will influence demand and supply for land based goods, such as those produced by the forestry and farming sectors. Land use choices in this regard are also influenced by the grants and subsidy regime, such as the reformed CAP. Market forces and the CAP have undoubtedly had a significant impact on land use choices on Cowal and land use balance is currently being tipped in favour of forestry due to buoyant timber prices and structural changes within the CAP (see LUS Principle C assessment in Appendix 6). These external impacts affect land use planning issues at all scales and are hard to plan for without stronger ‘stick’ based delivery mechanisms (e.g. the use of compulsory ILMPs as a condition of CAP Pillar I payments for land holdings over a certain size threshold – see section 3.3). Nonetheless, this is an important issue to bear in mind in sub-regional planning to ensure, as far as possible, that planning frameworks have the ability to deliver a desired land use strategy. This weakness is relevant to the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project barrier – grants, incentives and revenue55. Data limitations mean that there will always be a requirement for site level assessment: the evaluation interviews and the Cowal pilot report itself highlighted key data limitations affecting the efficacy of sub-regional planning on Cowal: (1) the granularity of the peat soils dataset; and (2) the Macaulay land capability for agriculture dataset56 which is felt to be of limited value in less intensive agricultural areas (see LUS Principle C assessment in Appendix 6). As a result, the strategic constraints mapping (Cowal pilot Method No.4) is felt to be of limited accuracy and therefore cannot be used as a stand-alone tool for defining spatial land use policy (e.g. a landowner could disprove a peat constraint in a given field by simply putting a spade in the ground and measuring peat depth). Whilst sub- regional forest planning can address these issues to a degree, by identifying local level constraints and opportunities in a more qualitative manner e.g. through the use of stakeholder meetings / workshops (Cowal pilot Method No.5), it will never be possible to have perfect data and therefore a degree of site level assessment will always be required, as an important regulatory back-stop (see section 3.2). Furthermore, the FCS evaluation interview highlighted better data (and stakeholder engagement) as a key priority for improving sub-regional forest planning. This data issue applies to forest planning elsewhere, at regional and sub-regional scales, and is also of direct relevance to the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project barrier – methods and data57. Poor consideration of LUS Principle F / climate change issues: the Cowal pilot considered climate change mitigation issues implicitly through discussion and analysis of peat constraint though there is no consideration of adaptation (see section 4.2 and LUS Principle F assessment in Appendix 6). There is a general assumption that the LUS promotes land use / management practice that contributes to the whole climate change
55 Ibid 56 The Macaulay Land Capability for Agriculture (LCA) assessment dataset: http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/explorescotland/lca.html [accessed 05/01/15] 57 See paragraphs 6.6 and 6.7 in Phillips et al (2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 32 Final Report March 2015
agenda (mitigation and adaptation) and that this dual purpose should be possible in most contexts58. The partial consideration of LUS Principle F within the Cowal pilot arguably highlights the need for a more integrated approach to forest planning (Theme 12 – see section 3.1) that can support the consideration of wider land use issues e.g. recognising deep peats as important assets, understanding and mapping climate risks (such as flooding) to identify forestry related adaptation options etc. This weakness is relevant to the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project barrier – land manager skills, awareness and training59 including the specific barriers difficulty / challenges / inertia in changing to more integrated land use planning and management practices and the challenge of land management for climate change adaptation, especially if there are no apparent climate change impacts within the management area. Limitations of stakeholder engagement and partnership working: the evaluation highlighted key weaknesses (as well as strengths) in relation to stakeholder engagement (lack of community and public engagement) and partnership working (no formal approach, challenges of working across jurisdictional boundaries etc). These issues are discussed in detail at section 4.1.
58 This is certainly the case with forestry – see, for example: Opportunity mapping for woodland creation to improve water quality and reduce flood risk in the river Tay catchment – a pilot for Scotland (Broadmeadow et al, 2013): http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Tay_OM_Report_June13.pdf/$file/Tay_OM_Report_June13.pdf [accessed 18/01/15] 59 See paragraphs 6.25 and 6.35 in Phillips et al (2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 33 Final Report March 2015
5. Dumfries and Galloway pilot – summary of evaluation results
This Chapter provides a summary of the various data collection and analysis activities undertaken in the Dumfries and Galloway (D&G) pilot evaluation, structured around the key questions in the evaluation framework. The detailed evaluation of the degree to which the D&G pilot has integrated the ten LUS Principles (Evaluation Question No.2) is documented in Appendix 7. The theme based analysis discussed in Chapter 3 highlights how important aspects of sub-regional planning for the D&G pilot are focussed on mechanisms, costs and benefits of sub-regional analysis, land use balance, stakeholder engagement and tools and methods. The implications of this are discussed throughout this Chapter e.g. in terms of links between the D&G pilot’s priority themes and the methods and approaches used in the development of the pilot approach identified under Evaluation Question No.1 (see section 5.1).
5.1 Processes followed in the development of the Dumfries and Galloway pilot Methods used to develop the D&G pilot framework / integrate LUS Principles Table 8 presents the key methods and approaches used to develop the D&G pilot framework and integrate LUS Principles. A more detailed explanation is provided at Appendix 7 and some example methods are discussed further below. Table 8: Methods used in the development of the D&G pilot framework Note: Where relevant the methods / approaches identified have been categorised on the basis of the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project method categorisation60. The table below also categorises the methods / approaches identified in terms of their relevance to the LUS Principles (see Table 1) and the sub-regional forest planning themes identified at section 3.1. Strongly Less strongly Relevant sub- Method / approach relevant LUS relevant LUS regional forest Principles Principles planning themes Key to LUS Principles: A = multiple benefits; B = regulation; C = primary use; D = ecosystem services; E = landscape change; F = climate change; G = vacant and derelict land; H = outdoor recreation and access; I = involving people; and J = land use and the daily living link. See Table 1 for full details of the LUS Principles. New method category: highly integrated approach to assessing, collating and communicating forest planning issues at a range of scales 1. Multi-scale approach to the assessment of A, C, D, E, F, H G and J 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, forest planning constraints, including and I 13, 14 and 17 spatial analysis of strategic constraints at the regional scale and a more qualitative analysis of local constraints at the sub- regional scale (see LUS Principle C assessment in Appendix 7) 2. Use of a highly structured approach to All principles N/A 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, assessing and communicating local level 15 and 17 forest planning issues (see LUS Principle A and B assessment in Appendix 7) 3. Use of key related plans and policies to A, C, D, E and F G and H 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, help scope constraints at regional and sub- 14, 15 and 17 regional scales (see LUS Principle C assessment in Appendix 7) LUS Delivery Evaluation Project method category: partnerships and governance and engagement and
60 See paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 in Phillips et al (2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 34 Final Report March 2015
Strongly Less strongly Relevant sub- Method / approach relevant LUS relevant LUS regional forest Principles Principles planning themes Key to LUS Principles: A = multiple benefits; B = regulation; C = primary use; D = ecosystem services; E = landscape change; F = climate change; G = vacant and derelict land; H = outdoor recreation and access; I = involving people; and J = land use and the daily living link. See Table 1 for full details of the LUS Principles. awareness-raising 4. Use of stakeholder input to determine and C, D, E, F and I A, G, H and J 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, agree weighting protocols for use in multi- 14, 15 and 17 scale constraints analysis (see D&G Method No.1 above) i.e. the relative importance of strategic constraints for different types of forest development (see LUS Principle C assessment in Appendix 7) LUS Delivery Evaluation Project method category: ecosystem services 5. Delineating sub-regional management A, C, D, E and F H and J 1, 3, 5, 9, 11 and 12 areas on the basis of functional ecosystem boundaries (see LUS Principle D assessment in Appendix 7) 6. Use of landscape ecology concepts and C, D and F A and E 4, 5, 11, 12, 13 and integrated habitat network (IHN) 14 modelling to understand key ecosystem function issues (ecological connectivity) and implications for forest development (see LUS Principle D assessment in Appendix 7) LUS Delivery Evaluation Project method category: planning and design 7. Use of a placemaking approach to forest C and E A, D, F, H and J 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, planning and design (see LUS Principle E 14 and 17 assessment in Appendix 7) D&G pilot Method No.2 – the use of a highly structured approach to assessing and communicating local level forest planning issues: the D&G pilot has a strong focus on understanding and communicating the wider land use issues associated with forest development – i.e. the balance of other important land uses and natural / cultural heritage assets that combine to deliver a range of multiple benefits from the management area. The sub- regional aspects of the D&G Forestry and Woodland Strategy (FWS) present these issues in a very clear, structured manner as follows (see figure opposite also): (1) overview and description of the area (i.e. the specific sub-region – see Figure 2); (2) the existing woodland resource; (3) local assets (e.g. important landscapes, tourism and recreation destinations, fisheries etc); (4) the main issues for forest development (and other land management) to consider (e.g. diffuse pollution from agriculture, high value agricultural land as a constraint to forest development etc); (5) priorities for woodland management; and (6) priorities for new woodland. The collation and communication of issues in this manner provides a clear steer to
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 35 Final Report March 2015 prospective applicants on the type of forest development likely to be supported in a given sub- region as well as the critical constraints and other issues that should be considered in forest design. D&G pilot Method No.7 – use of a placemaking approach to forest planning and design: the D&G pilot’s specific sub-regional approach has potential to support landscape sensitive forest planning and design at a range of scales (see LUS Principle E assessment in Appendix 7). In particular, the schedule of local issues collated for each sub-region (see above and Table 8) can help to ensure that woodland creation proposals / Forest Plans consider issues outwith the immediate site boundary – e.g. what are the important local assets that contribute to landscape character, how might changes in land use balance impact landscape etc. This type of approach is very much aligned to the placemaking agenda61 which recognises how notions of ‘place’ are particularly relevant at more local / human scales and how good development and design should account for these types of local issue by thinking ‘beyond the red line’ of a development proposal to ensure that development is integrated with its surrounding landscape and context. Involvement of stakeholders in the D&G pilot The D&G pilot adopted a highly structured approach to stakeholder engagement with an overall objective of building consensus around the main issues, opportunities and constraints for forest development. This process of consensus building with stakeholders was identified as a key strength of the D&G pilot during the FCS evaluation interview. Furthermore, the consideration of sub-regional issues within the D&G pilot was identified as a key strength for stakeholder engagement during the evaluation interview with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). In particular, the focus on sub-regional issues can make FWS consultation much more relevant to ‘bottom-up’ stakeholders (e.g. farmers, local communities etc) by presenting the issues at a more meaningful scale. Specific stakeholder engagement objectives were threefold: (1) agree the generic / strategic issues for consideration in the D&G FWS (see D&G pilot Method No.1 and LUS Principle A assessment in Appendix 7); (2) agree weighting protocols for the spatial analysis of strategic constraints within FWS-development (see D&G pilot Method No.4 and LUS Principle C assessment in Appendix 7); and (3) scope local issues for consideration in sub-regional planning – this is the key area where stakeholder engagement in the D&G pilot contributed to sub-regional forest planning. Evaluation interviews with D&G Council officers also highlighted how stakeholder engagement was used to test and validate proposed management unit geographies for sub-regional planning – i.e. water catchments and distinct areas of landscape character as discussed in the LUS Principle D assessment in Appendix 7. The D&G pilot’s stakeholder engagement approach focussed on the use of two separate structures / stakeholder groups: (1) a working group (WG) comprising priority stakeholders that took lead responsibility for drafting the FWS and; (2) a stakeholder group (SG) with a wider membership that inputted to FWS-development at key stages. Dumfries and Galloway Council were the lead stakeholder (as the ‘owners’ of the FWS) though other WG stakeholders have a critical role in the management and delivery of the FWS – e.g. FCS, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). The evaluation interviews highlighted how the WG effectively provided a ‘sounding board’ to D&G Council who have ultimate responsibility for strategy decision-making and adoption of the FWS as supplementary guidance to the D&G Local Development Plan62 (LDP). Furthermore, the WG was managed in such a way that primary stakeholder contacts represented therein (e.g. SEPA) were able to draw on wider input from colleagues within their respective organisations, helping to ensure that WG meetings and decision- making were streamlined whilst ensuring access to additional expertise as required. Membership of
61 See for example Delivering Better Places in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2010): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/336587/0110158.pdf [accessed 12/01/15] 62 Dumfries and Galloway Council Local Development Plan (LDP) pages: http://www.dumgal.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=11907 [accessed 19/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 36 Final Report March 2015 the SG was much wider and included, for example: private sector forestry interests, the NHS and various NGOs including the Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCofS) and John Muir Trust (JMT). In practical terms, the D&G pilot’s stakeholder engagement process involved iteration between the WG and SG through several key stages. This included workshops with the SG (drawing on specific technical inputs – lists of generic issues, maps and outputs from the spatial analysis) to identify the ‘big ticket’ issues for consideration in forest planning within each of the agreed sub-regions. Whilst undoubtedly a useful approach, the evaluation interviews highlighted the challenges inherent to large, diverse workshops of this kind i.e. managing the workshop effectively to ensure a balanced outcome where no one voice or agenda has dominated the discussion. Once agreed however, the issues identified were distilled down into the collated lists of local level forest planning issues, as per D&G pilot Method No.2 (see Table 8 above). Furthermore, two public ‘drop-in’ days were held as well as the statutory consultation on the draft FWS and its accompanying Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Environmental Report. These consultations provided an opportunity for affected communities to input to the local issues process though the evaluation interviews highlighted how there was a poor response rate to the formal consultation on the draft FWS, from the public and the forestry sector. The poor public response rate may be a key weakness of the D&G pilot approach given key issues highlighted in the evaluation interviews concerning possible conflicts between new planting across the region and community aspirations. Poor input from the forestry sector at this stage may be less critical given their representation on the SG (see above). The role of partnership working in the D&G pilot A formal partnership approach was not adopted in the D&G pilot in the sense that members of the WG and SG structures (see above) were not required to sign-up to a formal partnership agreement or work under a specific Terms of Reference (ToR) document (or such like). However evaluation interviews with key WG members (SNH and SEPA) highlighted how the informal WG approach worked well and in particular that time input to the group was not onerous. Crucially, the interviews with SNH and SEPA also identified key benefits of early input (through a WG type structure) in terms of being able to inform strategy from the outset to cut down time spent on case work (i.e. reviewing FC consultations) later on (see section 5.4 also).
5.2 Integration of LUS Principles in the Dumfries and Galloway pilot framework Appendix 7 provides a detailed assessment of the degree to which the D&G pilot has integrated the ten LUS Principles within its policies and framework. This assessment was based on data from the document review and interviews with four Dumfries and Galloway forest planning stakeholders (see Table 2). As such, the assessment is illustrative only (i.e. not definitive) and should be read with this in mind. A summary of the assessment is shown on Figure 7. All of the LUS Principles were found to be relevant to the D&G pilot. As shown on Figure 7, the D&G pilot has integrated all LUS Principles fully with the exception of LUS Principle D on ecosystem services and Principle G on vacant and derelict land which have only been integrated ‘to a degree’. One possible reason why the D&G pilot’s consideration of LUS Principles is so comprehensive (in contrast to the Cowal and Flow Country pilots for example) is the fact that the sub-regional aspects of the D&G approach are part of a more conventional, regional scale FWS i.e. the strategy covers the whole of the Dumfries and Galloway Local Authority area which has then been divided into seven local areas to facilitate sub-regional planning. As such, the range of issues covered by a pilot of this scale (spatial extent) are such that most LUS Principles are likely to be relevant and considered within the pilot’s policies and frameworks. A case in point is LUS Principle G on vacant and derelict land which was deemed to be non-applicable in both the Cowal and Flow Country pilots though it has been translated ‘to a degree’ in the D&G pilot (see below). This
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 37 Final Report March 2015 assessment is closely linked to several key findings from the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project63 which identified how “…a broader range of LUS Principles […] are likely to be relevant to land use delivery mechanisms that encompass a broader spatial area” (Phillips et al, 2014 p.63) and that “the greater breadth of activities / sectors covered by a [land use delivery mechanism], the greater the delivery of multiple benefits / translation of multiple LUS Principles” (Phillips et al, 2014 p.62).
Key to integration of
LUS Principles within Multiple benefits Regulation Primary use Ecosystem services Landscape change Climate change Vacant & derelict land Outdoor & recreation access Involving people Land use & the linkdaily living
the pilot framework
A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Yes To a degree
No N/A N/A Figure 7: Dumfries and Galloway pilot – integration of LUS Principles within the pilot framework Note: The Figure above shows the degree to which the ten LUS Principles have been integrated within the D&G pilot’s policy and framework (the LUS Principles are listed in full at Table 1). Summary details of the analysis approach adopted are provided at section 2.3 and in full within the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014). LUS Principle D on ecosystem services has been assessed as integrated ‘to a degree’ only due to the highly implicit, somewhat limited consideration of ecosystems and ecosystem services. Indeed the evaluation interviews highlighted how ecosystem services were not ‘common currency’ five years ago (i.e. at the start of strategy development). Whilst there are some key strengths to the consideration of LUS Principle D type issues (e.g. the geographies for sub-regional management areas have been mapped to ecosystem boundaries – see D&G pilot Method No.5), the use of specific tools supporting understanding of ecosystem function and the value / distribution of ecosystem services is focussed on habitat network modelling / ecological connectivity (see D&G pilot Method No.6) with limited consideration of other ecosystem services. For example both of the FWS case studies considered in the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project64 used SEPA’s data on indicative flood risk to identify opportunity areas where forest development could provide flood regulation ecosystem services. LUS Principle G on vacant and derelict land (VDL) has been assessed as integrated ‘to a degree’ only due to the FWS’ very basic approach to consideration of VDL issues e.g. there is no assessment of the location, condition or quality of the VDL resource (see Appendix 7). Crucially, the D&G pilot has integrated LUS Principle F on climate change fully, a key strength given the LUS’ provenance within the Climate Change (Scotland) Act. The D&G pilot considers climate change mitigation issues extensively e.g. with reference to the carbon storage function of forests (standing biomass), the climate change mitigation benefits of forest products (timber as a construction material, woodfuel etc) and discussion of deep peats as a key natural asset that should be protected from inappropriate forest development (including specific sub-regional peat issues). Crucially the strategy also includes consideration of adaptation issues, primarily in relation to adaptation by the forest sector but also in terms of how forestry can help other sectors to adapt e.g. protecting and enhancing native woodland habitats and habitat networks to facilitate landscape scale wildlife movements in response to habitat range shift.
63 See Chapter 4 in Phillips et al (2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15] 64 See paragraphs 3.55 – 3.60 in Phillips et al (2014): ibid
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 38 Final Report March 2015
5.3 The Dumfries and Galloway pilot’s influence on local level land use decision-making Within the scope of the evaluation project it was not possible to test Evaluation Question No.3 – is there any evidence that pilot projects have influenced local level land use decision-making to help meet the overall objectives of the LUS – as there were no woodland creation applications / Forest Plans to review that have been tested against the D&G pilot framework. However the analysis discussed at section 5.2 and Appendix 7 indicates that all of the LUS Principles are relevant to the D&G pilot and that the relevant Principles have been translated fully in all but two instances (see Figure 7). As such, one would expect any forest projects approved / supported under the auspices of the D&G pilot to translate a range of LUS Principle issues very effectively.
5.4 Costs and benefits of the Dumfries and Galloway pilot Costs associated with the D&G pilot The evaluation interviews were used to tease out the specific costs associated with the sub-regional aspects of the D&G pilot. All four stakeholders interviewed (D&G Council, FCS, SEPA and SNH) were members of the working group (see section 5.1) and therefore had key responsibility for developing and drafting the FWS, including the specific sub-regional aspects. Crucially, the evaluation interviews highlighted a perception that there are no / very minimal additional costs associated with forest planning at the sub-regional level. In particular, there were no direct costs (consultancy fees, purchasing additional data etc) and any costs associated with officer time were considered to be modest or no different to those associated with a more traditional, regional scale FWS (e.g. SNH commented that they would have been involved on the working group and as participants in the workshops regardless therefore the officer time costs would have been the same). For example the interview with Dumfries and Galloway Council officers highlighted how there were some additional officer time costs associated with collating and assessing information on local level issues though these costs would have been there to a degree in a purely regional approach i.e. the difference between the two is marginal65. This sentiment was echoed during the FCS interview which highlighted how only ~20% of the FWS covers sub-regional issues. Given the above, it is perhaps unsurprising that evaluation interview participants found it difficult to put a specific cost against the sub-regional aspects of the D&G pilot. What this highlights however is that sub-regional forest planning as per the D&G model may be a particularly cost-effective approach given that most (if not all) sub-regional planning activities can be ‘piggy-backed’ on to an existing regional activity66. This is in clear contrast to the Cowal and Flow Country Pilots which were undertaken as ‘stand-alone’ exercises and were not part of any wider budget / time commitment for a regional FWS (see sections 4.4 and 6.4). Where it was possible for interviewees to quantify time input, SEPA highlighted how working group meetings were ‘not onerous’ and generally lasted half a day and FCS inputs were described as ‘reasonably modest’ equating to approximately two weeks across the lifetime of the project. Benefits of the D&G pilot A number of specific benefits of the D&G pilot approach were identified through the evaluation interviews. Crucially, all four interviewees (D&G Council, FCS, SEPA and SNH) felt that the balance of
65 This may have been a particularly significant issue for D&G Council as they were responsible for collating, analysing and disseminating consultation results round the working group – see section 5.1 and Appendix 7 66 Indeed the recently adopted Ayrshire and Arran FWS adopts a very similar approach to the D&G pilot whereby sub-regional forest planning has been fully integrated with a more traditional, regional scale FWS approach: Ayrshire and Arran Forestry and Woodland Strategy (AAFWS Steering Group, 2014): http://www.aawp.org.uk/AAFWS_2014.pdf [accessed 19/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 39 Final Report March 2015 costs and benefits of the pilot were tipped very much in favour of benefits. Indeed the FCS stakeholder commented that they wouldn’t do FWS planning any other way. A critical benefit for SNH and SEPA – as statutory consultees in the woodland creation application / Forest Plan process – is the potential for sub-regional forest planning to help streamline their subsequent involvement and reduce costs associated with forest planning case work. In particular, SNH and SEPA both saw the benefit of spending some additional time at the FWS stage (albeit a modest additional cost – see above) to help scope out and build consensus on the sub-regional issues that successful forest development proposals will need to consider. The cost-benefit of ‘front-loading’ in this manner presents a particularly strong case given the potential to reduce operational costs at a later date. In addition, the evaluation interviews identified several additional benefits that all have the potential to help realise woodland expansion opportunities in Dumfries and Galloway, in line with the WEAG’s rationale for sub-regional forest planning (see Box 2): Sub-regional planning provides an opportunity for technical stakeholders to identify relevant local level issues: this can help to ensure that future forest development is appropriate – i.e. the right tree in the right place. Identifying additional / smaller scale planting opportunities: SNH highlighted how the large scale planting opportunities of the 1960s and 70s are gone – sub-regional forest planning, such as the D&G pilot, can help to identify fine grained planting opportunities within highly constrained landscapes. Relevance to ‘bottom-up’ stakeholders: sub-regional planning is much more relevant to ‘bottom-up’ stakeholders (farmers, local communities etc) as it works at meaningful scales and with local issues. Increased stakeholder engagement can help to build consensus on local level issues, helping to identify key additional planting opportunities. Supporting integrated land use: the D&G pilot’s approach to sub-regional forest planning pays particular attention to the consideration of land use balance issues and the wider land use impacts of forest development. This approach has the potential to support more integrated patterns of land use, helping to realise fine grained planting opportunities within constrained landscapes. Stakeholder consensus on land use balance issues: a high degree of stakeholder consensus on land use balance issues was achieved through the D&G pilot to the extent that there was no negative feedback from the forestry sector on the draft FWS. In essence, the planting opportunities presented in the FWS have been agreed with all key stakeholders involved (including private sector forestry interests and environmental regulators) supporting the delivery of sustainable planting opportunities in D&G.
5.5 Strengths and weaknesses of the Dumfries and Galloway pilot Key strengths of the D&G pilot and methods that are working well The evaluation interviews highlighted a number of key strengths associated with the D&G pilot. These have been linked to specific methods and approaches utilised in the Cowal pilot (section 5.1 and Table 8) to identify those methods that may be working well. In effect, where a specific strength identified by stakeholders can be linked to a method, the assumption is that the method will be working well. From an analysis of data from the evaluation interviews, the Dumfries and Galloway pilot has a number of important strengths across a range of sub-regional forest planning issues. Specific key strengths and related methods are summarised below: The sub-regional approach reflects the diversity of the Dumfries and Galloway Local Authority area: the evaluation interviews highlighted the diversity of the D&G area in terms of a range of interrelated factors e.g. landscape, land use, management issues,
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 40 Final Report March 2015
location and condition of key natural assets etc. Crucially, sub-regional forest planning can avoid the risk of ‘tarring the whole region with the same brush’ thereby providing a more subtle approach for evaluating opportunities and constraints in complex landscapes. This strength can be linked, in particular, to the three D&G pilot methods that provide an integrated approach to assessing, collating and communicating forest planning issues at a range of scales (D&G methods Nos. 1 – 3). It is also relevant to the D&G pilot’s approach to delineating management unit geographies for sub-regional forest planning (D&G method No.5) which divides up the region on the basis of functional ecosystem boundaries i.e. an approach that recognises the region’s natural variability. Local people can relate to the FWS: the consideration of specific sub-regional issues ensures that the D&G pilot is much more relevant to local / bottom-up stakeholders, such as farmers and local communities e.g. a farmer in Eskdale (an eastern sub-region) will have little interest in forest planning issues near Stranraer (a western sub-region). Effective engagement of local stakeholders in this regard could be an important factor helping to build consensus around local level forest planning issues, especially in relation to local landscapes and placemaking approaches to forest planning and design that work at a more human scale (D&G method No.7). Effective use of partnership working between core stakeholders and workshop sessions with wider stakeholders: early stakeholder involvement was seen as a critical success factor for the high degree of consensus that was achieved on forest planning issues, at regional and sub-regional scales. Effective stakeholder engagement is critical to a number of the D&G pilot methods, especially all methods that provide an integrated approach to assessing, collating and communicating forest planning issues at a range of scales (D&G methods Nos. 1 – 3) and also the specific use of stakeholder input to define weighting protocols in the spatial analysis of strategic constraints (D&G method No.4). The sub-regional approach provides a qualitative assessment of land use balance that is structured and clear: the D&G pilot’s consideration of local level forest planning issues / constraints in conjunction with a more traditional, regional scale FWS spatial analysis approach of land use categories (preferred, potential and sensitive land for woodland expansion) provides a qualitative means of tracking land use balance change over time, reflecting the cumulative / dynamic nature of land use. For example, the local level planning issues can be reappraised in light of forest development and other land use changes – e.g. has local land use balance changed to the extent that FWS land use categories should be reassessed? Furthermore, the D&G pilot’s approach is seen to provide a clear articulation of why planting should take place (or not) in a given sub-region including a qualitative assessment of the scale and type of forestry that might be appropriate i.e. local priorities for woodland management and woodland expansion given other local land use balance issues (see section 5.1 and D&G pilot method No.2 in particular). This strength is particularly relevant to all methods that provide an integrated approach to assessing, collating and communicating forest planning issues at a range of scales (D&G methods Nos. 1 – 3) as well as D&G method No.7 on the use of a place- making approach to forest planning and design. Key weaknesses of the D&G pilot and potential barriers to LUS delivery On the basis of the data collation and analysis activities undertaken for the D&G pilot (see Table 2), no key weaknesses or barriers have been identified. Whilst this is a key positive for the D&G pilot’s approach it is important to bear in mind the inherent limitations of the evaluation approach adopted e.g. the limited number of evaluation interviews undertaken.
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 41 Final Report March 2015
6. Flow Country pilot – summary of evaluation results
This Chapter provides a summary of the various data collection and analysis activities undertaken in the Flow Country pilot evaluation, structured around the key questions in the evaluation framework. The detailed evaluation of the degree to which the Flow Country pilot has integrated the ten LUS Principles (Evaluation Question No.2) is documented in Appendix 8. The theme based analysis discussed in Chapter 3 highlights how important aspects of sub-regional planning for the Flow Country pilot are focussed on mechanisms, partnerships and governance, private asset value and revenue, data and evidence and land use interactions and integrated land use planning. The implications of this are discussed throughout this Chapter e.g. in terms of links between the Flow Country pilot’s priority themes and the methods and approaches used in the development of the pilot approach identified under Evaluation Question No.1 (see section 6.1).
6.1 Processes followed in the development of the Flow Country pilot Methods used to develop the D&G pilot framework / integrate LUS Principles Table 9 presents the key methods and approaches used to develop the Flow Country pilot framework and integrate LUS Principles. A more detailed explanation is provided at Appendix 8 and some example methods are discussed further below. Table 9: Methods used in the development of the Flow Country pilot framework Note: Where relevant the methods / approaches identified have been categorised on the basis of the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project method categorisation67. The table below also categorises the methods / approaches identified in terms of their relevance to the LUS Principles (see Table 1) and the sub-regional forest planning themes identified at section 3.1. Strongly Less strongly Relevant sub- Method / approach relevant LUS relevant LUS regional forest Principles Principles planning themes Key to LUS Principles: A = multiple benefits; B = regulation; C = primary use; D = ecosystem services; E = landscape change; F = climate change; G = vacant and derelict land; H = outdoor recreation and access; I = involving people; and J = land use and the daily living link. See Table 1 for full details of the LUS Principles. LUS Delivery Evaluation Project method category: spatial analysis and ecosystem services 1. Bespoke landscape ecology tool and local A, B C, D, F and I E and J 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, level FCS policy providing broad spatial 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and guidance for strategic removal of 19 woodland to restore high nature conservation value peatland habitats. Note: the method is designed to deliver integrated land use where possible i.e. minimising woodland removal whilst restoring the most important peatland habitats (see LUS Principle C assessment in Appendix 8) 2. Use of FCS peat policy68 to determine A, B, C, D and F E, I and J 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, areas of peatland and forestry primary 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 land use (for woodland creation and restocking) as part of an integrated approach to forest planning that maximises multiple benefits from peatland
67 See paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 in Phillips et al (2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15] 68 Supplementary guidance to support the FC Forest and Peatland Habitats Guidance Note 2000 (FCS, 2014): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/peatland-habitats-supplementary-guidance.pdf [accessed 05/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 42 Final Report March 2015
Strongly Less strongly Relevant sub- Method / approach relevant LUS relevant LUS regional forest Principles Principles planning themes Key to LUS Principles: A = multiple benefits; B = regulation; C = primary use; D = ecosystem services; E = landscape change; F = climate change; G = vacant and derelict land; H = outdoor recreation and access; I = involving people; and J = land use and the daily living link. See Table 1 for full details of the LUS Principles. and forestry where possible (see LUS Principle C assessment in Appendix 8) 3. Ecosystems approach based land use A, C, D, E and F I and J 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, and 13 planning to identify ecosystem service hotspots and trade-offs between different land use options (see LUS Principle D assessment in Appendix 8) LUS Delivery Evaluation Project method category: partnerships and governance and ecosystem services 4. Stakeholder engagement and practical site A, C, D, F and I E and J 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, meetings to ‘ground truth’ outputs from 15 and 17 land use planning models to reach consensus on a rational land use strategy supported by all key stakeholders (see LUS Principle C assessment in Appendix 8) 5. Advisory Officer post to support private A, B, C, I and J D, E, F and H 7, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18 land owners through a policy / regulation- and 19 driven land use change, including advice and support identifying possible revenue options and grant support (see LUS Principle I assessment in Appendix 8) Flow Country pilot Method No.1 – bespoke landscape ecology tool and local level FCS policy providing broad spatial guidance for strategic removal of woodland to restore high nature conservation value peatland habitats: the Flows pilot involved the development a bespoke land use planning tool / approach to address specific local issues concerning the ‘edge effect’ impacts of historic commercial conifer plantations on high nature conservation value peatland habitats – i.e. the Caithness and Sutherland Peatland Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Area (SPA)69. The tool is premised on a three year study of breeding bird populations and habitat conditions within the Flows that subsequently formed the basis of a peer reviewed journal article published in 2013 concerning the edge effect of conifer plantations on key species of peatland birds70. In essence, the study combined peatland habitat and bird survey (dunlin and golden plover – key bird species associated with the SPA) to identify the relationship between
69 SNH Natura sites and Habitats and Birds Directives pages: http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands- nature/protected-areas/international-designations/natura-sites/ [accessed 13/01/15] 70 Modelling edge effects of mature forest plantations on peatland waders informs landscape scale conservation (Wilson et al, 2013): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12173/abstract [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 43 Final Report March 2015 habitat characteristics and the presence (or not) of birds. The habitat characteristics assessed included key biophysical factors (slope, elevation, vegetation cover and presence of pool systems) and, crucially, distance to forest edge. The study identified a clear link between the presence of birds and distance to forest edge and also the various biophysical properties that determine the quality of peatland habitats for birds71. The results of the study enabled the development of an ‘occupancy model’ that predicts the likely presence of birds based on the habitat characteristics assessed (slope, distance to forest edge etc – see above). By assessing habitat quality of the SAC / SPA peatland adjacent to existing woodland blocks, the model is then able to predict the likely benefit of pulling back the forest edge on the conservation objectives of the SAC / SPA peatland (see figure above). The outputs of the modelling process have been used to develop specific local FCS guidance for forest managers developing Forest Plans72 i.e. identifying the areas of existing commercial forestry that will not be subject to conventional restocking. Whenever trees are felled there is a presumption, supported by legislation – the Forestry Act (1967)73, in favour of restocking. However, for woodland on deep peats, the greenhouse gas / climate change mitigation and wider environmental implications of future management are more significant than on other sites. Proposals for felling without conventional restocking on these sites that are less suitable for second rotation forestry or where there is a clear benefit of peatland restoration will therefore be supported. In practical land use / management terms, the model and associated FCS guidance identify broad spatial areas (the modelling is based on 200m grid squares – see figure above) where woodland removal may be required at the second rotation. The model’s detailed assessment of a range of habitat characteristics (see above) ensure an integrated approach as far as possible i.e. the modelled requirement for woodland removal is less where adjacent habitat quality is lower (an ‘intelligent’ buffer approach based on landscape ecology principles). Regardless, the modelled approach is contentious (particularly amongst private sector forestry interests in the Flows) given the impacts of woodland removal on private asset value and revenue (Theme 18). Accordingly the strategic spatial guidance approach associated with the modelling is tested through a site level assessment and planning process also (Flow Country pilot Method No.4). Flow Country pilot Method No.5 – Advisory Officer post to support private land owners through a policy / regulation-driven land use change, including advice and support identifying possible revenue options and grant support: as outlined above in relation Flow Country pilot Method No.1, the approach adopted in the Flows is contentious given the impact of local level policy and guidance on private asset value and revenue, especially issues relating to devaluing private assets to deliver public benefit benefits. To help address this issue, FCS and SNH will provide support to landowners on pulling back the forest edge in an integrated manner that supports as many land use objectives as possible, given the constraints. In addition, the RSPB coordinated Flow to the Future74 project provides support through an Advisory Officer post that will support private land owners and their agents through open ground peatland restoration and woodland regeneration removal e.g. providing support with SRDP75 grant applications, identifying diversification options etc. Involvement of stakeholders in the Flow Country pilot The main purpose of stakeholder engagement in the Flows pilot is to ‘ground-truth’ spatial outputs from the strategic woodland removal guidance (Flow Country pilot Method No.1). Woodland
71 Ibid 72 Guidance to Forest Managers preparing Forest Plans within the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SAC / SPA (FCS, 2013) [not available online] 73 Forestry Act 1967: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/10/contents [accessed 23/02/15] 74 RSPB Flow to the Future pages: http://www.rspb.org.uk/joinandhelp/donations/campaigns/impact/flowcountry/future.aspx [accessed 14/01/15] 75 Scottish Government SRDP pages: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP [accessed 15/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 44 Final Report March 2015 removal in the Flows is a contentious issue (see above) and the use of stakeholder engagement in this manner provides an opportunity for various stakeholder interests (e.g. statutory agencies, NGOs, private land owners / agents) to input to site level forest planning, helping to translate the strategic spatial guidance into rational land management decision-making, whilst achieving as much consensus as possible. There was also some stakeholder engagement involved in the development of the Flows specific FCS guidance76 e.g. FCS ran stakeholder engagement workshops to present the work of the Flow Country Science Group (see below) and to involve forestry agents in the development of the guidance. The approach to the ‘ground-truthing’ aspect of stakeholder engagement focussed very much on practical meetings between the parties concerned. In particular, these meetings provided an opportunity for the various statutory agencies (FCS, SNH) to get together with private land owners / land agents and other stakeholders (e.g. RSBP) to discuss the evidence base for woodland removal (i.e. the 2013 edge effects study77 as per Flow Country pilot Method No.1), scope out the practical implications of the edge effects policy for specific forests / land holdings, go through maps / model outputs etc. Crucially, this process involved site visits to walk the forest edge and provide an opportunity for the various stakeholders to input local knowledge and discuss practical issues on the ground, from their respective stances e.g. from a private sector perspective, identifying fine scale topographical features that may reduce the natural heritage conservation value of part of an adjacent SAC / SPA site, potentially reducing the woodland removal area. The vitally important nature of these meetings between private sector forestry interests and other stakeholders was highlighted in all of the evaluation interviews. From a private sector perspective (noting that only one evaluation interview was undertaken with a private sector stakeholder), these meetings were seen as a crucial opportunity to apply and rationalise the ‘blunt’’ edge effects spatial guidance and policy on the ground. Key stakeholders involved in this process are FCS, SNH, RSPB and private sector land owners / land agents. The evaluation interviews highlighted the Peatland Partnership78 and Caithness and Sutherland peat management strategy79 as important structures contributing to and supporting stakeholder engagement in the Flows. In particular, the Peatland Partnership develops strategy on land use issues across the region, as set out in the Caithness and Sutherland peat management strategy. Crucially both of these structures are wider in scope than the specific area encompassed by the Flow Country pilot as they cover the whole of the Caithness and Sutherland region (see figure opposite). As such, it is not entirely clear what influence these structures have on FCS related decision-making processes in the Flows (i.e. Forest Plan
76 Guidance to Forest Managers preparing Forest Plans within the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SAC / SPA (FCS, 2013) [not available online] 77 Modelling edge effects of mature forest plantations on peatland waders informs landscape scale conservation (Wilson et al, 2013): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12173/abstract [accessed 14/01/15] 78 Peatlands Partnership pages: http://www.caithness.org/peatlands_partnership/ [accessed 14/01/15] 79 The Peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland Management Strategy 2005 – 2015 (SNH, 2005): http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/scottish/nhighland/PeatlandsStrategy.pdf [accessed 13/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 45 Final Report March 2015 approval) but the focus on consensus building as a key mechanism for land use delivery in the Flows (and Cowal and D&G – see section 3.2) implies that there may be some influence. Given this, the membership of the Peatland Partnership may be a critical issue for stakeholder involvement in land use strategy affecting the Flows, including in relation to peat and forestry issues which are central themes of the Caithness and Sutherland peat management strategy. Partners represented include FCS, SNH, RSPB, University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI), Highlands Council, Plantlife, Rivers Trusts, the local Deer Management Group (DMG) and various community interests. Crucially however there is no private sector representation on the Peatlands Partnership (though private interests will be represented to a degree by FCS and Highlands Council). Despite this it is important to note that the local FCS Conservancy has tested and approved actual forest plans using the edge effect information (see methods Nos. 1 – 3 in Table 9) which is premised on the consideration of peat related land use issues (i.e. the land use / management issues that are of central importance to the Peatlands Partnership). Furthermore, long term forest plans are subject to formal public consultation and placed on the public register80. The evaluation interviews highlighted a number of specific strengths and weaknesses of stakeholder engagement in the Flows pilot. A number of key strengths have been identified: (1) the Flows pilot is considered to provide a strategic approach that treats all private land owners equally, on the basis of sound science and evidence; (2) the Flows pilot has supported learning outcomes across different stakeholder groups e.g. the private sector have developed a greater understanding of Natura 2000 issues and Government agencies and NGOs have a greater appreciation of practical timber transport issues; and (3) Government agencies and NGOS recognise that private land owners and their agents have important local knowledge that can help to improve practical land management, for a range of objectives. However some weaknesses were also identified: a particular weakness of the approach is the lack of wider stakeholder engagement (i.e. with affected communities and the wider public) undertaken in the development of the edge effects map and associated local level FCS guidance (i.e. Flow Country pilot Method No.1). In this regard, the fact that the Flows approach is not grounded in a democratic Local Authority based process, as would be the case with a standard regional scale FWS, is seen to weaken the public defensibility of the mechanism. There are also issues around the engagement of private sector81 forestry interests in the Flows: (1) there is no private sector representation on the Peatlands Partnership (see above); (2) there are trust issues between the private sector and the various Government agencies that regulate land use in the Flows. In particular there is seen to be a mismatch between the modelled outputs / spatial guidance for woodland removal (Flow Country method No.1) and what is observed on the ground e.g. in terms of habitat characteristics and presence of birds; and (3) the private sector have received conflicting advice from Government agencies and other stakeholders (NGOs) e.g. concerning riparian management. The role of partnership working in the Flow Country pilot There has been a long history of partnership working in the wider Caithness and Sutherland region and in the Flow Country itself. In particular, the Peatland Partnership (see above) plays a key role supporting the development and delivery of land use strategy across the region, particularly in relation to forestry and peat land uses. In addition, the Flow Country Science Group (FCSG) was set up to test the edge effects hypothesis and to develop the subsequent edge effects model / mapping (Flow Country method No.1). As discussed above however, it was not possible within the scope of this evaluation project to identify the specific role of the Peatland Partnership in relation to FCS managed decision-making processes within the Flows. Partnership working between FCS, SNH, RSPB and the various private land owner interests in the Flows (e.g. ‘ground-truthing’ meetings to
80 FCS register of grant schemes pages: http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/supporting/grants-and- regulations/forestry-grants/register-of-grant-schemes [accessed 20/03/15] 81 The private sector specific issues outlined here have been identified on the basis of an evaluation interview with one private sector stakeholder only. As such, the issues are highly illustrative and should not be read as definitive
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 46 Final Report March 2015 rationalise the strategic edge effects spatial guidance to agree woodland removal areas in Forest Plans) is a more informal process. The absence of private sector representation on the Peatland Partnership appears to be an issue given the (ostensibly) important role the Partnership plays influencing integrated land use issues across the wider Caithness and Sutherland region.
6.2 Integration of LUS Principles in the Flow Country pilot framework Appendix 8 provides a detailed assessment of the degree to which the Flow Country pilot has integrated the ten LUS Principles within its policies and framework. This assessment was based on data from the document review and interviews with five Flow Country forest planning stakeholders (see Table 2). As such, the assessment is illustrative only (i.e. not definitive) and should be read with this in mind. A summary of the assessment is shown on Figure 8. All of the LUS Principles were found to be relevant to the Flow Country pilot with the exception of LUS Principle G on vacant and derelict land. As shown on Figure 8, the Flow Country pilot’s integration of the LUS Principles is highly varied. LUS Principle B on regulation, Principle C on primary use and Principle D on ecosystem services have been integrated fully. LUS Principle A on multiple benefits, Principle F on climate change and Principle I on involving people have only been integrated ‘to a degree’. Crucially, LUS Principle E on landscape change, Principle H on outdoor recreation and access and Principle J on land use and the daily living link are considered to be highly relevant to the Flows pilot though their consideration has not been evidenced within the scope of the data collation and analysis activities undertaken in the evaluation (see Table 2). It is anticipated that further targeted data collation (e.g. additional interviews) would highlight how these LUS Principles are being translated e.g. it is our understanding that the Flow to the Future project82 includes provision for outreach / education activities that would be highly relevant for LUS Principle J on land use and the daily living link. “
land
Key to integration of
LUS Principles within Multiple benefits Regulation Primary use Ecosystem services Landscape change Climate change Vacant & derelict Outdoor & recreation access Involving people Land use & the linkdaily living
the pilot framework
A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Yes To a degree ? N/A ? ? No N/A N/A Figure 8: Flow Country pilot – integration of LUS Principles within the pilot framework Note: The Figure above shows the degree to which the ten LUS Principles have been integrated within the Flow Country pilot’s policy and framework (the LUS Principles are listed in full at Table 1). Summary details of the analysis approach adopted are provided at section 2.3 and in full within the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014). LUS Principle A on multiple benefits has only been translated ‘to a degree’ due to the Flow Country pilot’s focus on woodland removal to support the restoration of high nature conservation value peatland habitats – i.e. peatland as a critical primary land use. Whilst the edge effects model and associated FCS guidance includes some provision for integrated land use (e.g. the edge effects map uses an ‘intelligent’ buffer based on peatland habitat characteristics and restoration potential – see Flows method No.1), the net effect of the policy will be a significant reduction in forest cover,
82 RSPB Flow to the Future pages: http://www.rspb.org.uk/joinandhelp/donations/campaigns/impact/flowcountry/future.aspx [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 47 Final Report March 2015 potentially reducing the range of multiple benefits provided by the management area and associated revenue options for private land owners (though the critical ecosystem services associated with high quality peatland habitat will be enhanced substantially). LUS Principle F on climate change has only been translated ’to a degree’ as a result of the Principle’s dual focus on climate change mitigation and adaptation whereby the Flows pilot has extensive consideration of mitigation issues (restoring carbon rich soils / high nature conservation value peatlands) but no explicit or implicit consideration of adaptation. A similar situation was evidenced in the Cowal pilot (see section 4.2). LUS Principle C on primary use and Principle D on ecosystem services have both been translated fully owing to the Flow Country pilot’s extensive consideration of peatland primary land use (a potential negative for LUS Principle A as discussed above) and peatland ecosystem function and ecosystem services. LUS Principle B on regulation has been translated fully due to the practical stakeholder engagement processes in place that helps ‘ground-truth’ strategic woodland removal guidance and achieve consensus through the Forest Plan process.
6.3 The Flow Country pilot’s influence on local level land use decision- making Within the scope of the evaluation project it was not possible to test Evaluation Question No.3 – is there any evidence that pilot projects have influenced local level land use decision-making to help meet the overall objectives of the LUS – given limited access to woodland creation applications / Forest Plans to review that have been tested against the Flows pilot framework. That said, it should be noted that FCS Conservancy staff have used the edge effect information in conjunction with national level guidance to assess and approve long term forest plans in the Flows. An evaluation interview was undertaken with a private sector stakeholder though the data collated during this interview does not provide an adequate evidence base with which to respond to Evaluation Question No.3 (the data collected has however played a key role supporting the response to other questions). However the analysis discussed at section 6.2 and Appendix 8 indicates that all but one of the LUS Principles are likely to be relevant to the Flow Country pilot (see Figure 8). As such, one would expect any forest projects approved / supported under the auspices of the Flow Country pilot to translate a range of LUS Principle issues, especially LUS Principle B on regulation, Principle C on primary use and Principle D on ecosystem services which have all been translated fully.
6.4 Costs and benefits of the Flow Country pilot Costs associated with the Flow Country pilot Developing a comprehensive understanding of the costs associated with the Flow Country pilot would be a complex undertaking given the number of stakeholders involved over a long period of time (e.g. the RSPB’s involvement in the Flows goes back to the late 1970s). In terms of time input to the pilot, the FCS evaluation interview highlighted how the local FCS Conservancy staff had spent ‘a lot of time’ working on the Flows. SNH have also inputted a substantial amount of officer time through their role on the FCSG and also operational site visits (i.e. ‘ground-truthing’ edge effects model outputs / spatial policies as per Flows method No.4). SNH also highlighted how they were subject to some direct costs supporting the work of the FCSG. Whilst it has not been possible to quantify the direct or person day costs associated with the Flows pilot it is clear that a huge number of person days will have been spent over the lifetime of the project. This includes, for example, the many site visits undertaken to walk the forest edge and discuss the practical implications of the edge effects model / policy (see section 6.1). The one private sector evaluation interview undertaken highlighted the costs to the land owner associated with woodland removal i.e. devaluing private assets to support public objectives. Although this is an outcome cost (i.e. it is not a cost associated with the Flows pilot process) it is nonetheless important within the overall balance of costs and benefits associated with the pilot. In this respect, there is also a case to be made for considering the
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 48 Final Report March 2015 total economic value (TEV) of restored peatland given the likely enhancement of key ecosystem services. Benefits of the Flow Country pilot The evaluation interview with SNH highlighted how the balance of costs and benefits associated with the Flows pilot were very much tipped in favour of benefits. The focus of costs for SNH was officer time though the benefit of working towards the landscape scale restoration of a nationally and internationally important habitat is felt to far outweigh these costs. Furthermore, SNH see a key benefit of ‘front-loading’ time input in strategic planning to streamline case work related inputs later on. This rationale was adopted by SEPA and SNH in the D&G pilot also (see section 6.4). The evaluation interview with FCS identified the main benefit of the Flows pilot as consensus on land use balance issues (peat and forestry) contributing to more rationally informed decision-making and a move away from lobbying by extremes. Land use balance in this regard relates to the protection and enhancement of high nature conservation value peatland habitats and the maintenance of commercial forestry where viable. Crucially land use balance consensus in the Flows will see a net reduction in forest cover which arguably works against the WEAG’s rationale for sub-regional forest planning (see Box 2). An additional benefit identified during the FCS interview is the improved awareness and understanding of different stakeholder perspectives as a result of the Flows pilot.
6.5 Strengths and weaknesses of the Flow Country pilot Key strengths of the Flow Country pilot and methods that are working well The evaluation interviews highlighted a number of key strengths associated with the Flows pilot. These have been linked to specific methods and approaches utilised in the Flows pilot (section 6.1 and Table 9) to identify those methods that may be working well. In effect, where a specific strength identified by stakeholders can be linked to a method, the assumption is that the method will be working well. From an analysis of data from the evaluation interviews, the Flow Country pilot has several important strengths across a range of sub-regional forest planning issues. Specific key strengths and related methods are summarised below: Ecosystem function / health is central to the Flows pilot approach: the whole approach to the Flows pilot is premised on understanding and planning for the impact of commercial forestry on key aspects of peatland ecosystem function (see LUS Principle D assessment in Appendix 8). The objective of this approach is the landscape scale restoration of internationally significant peatland habitats. This strength is particularly relevant to the spatial analysis / ecosystem services based methods adopted in the Flows pilot (methods Nos. 1 – 3). The Flows pilot approach is backed-up by sound science and evidence: the edge effects study and associated peer reviewed journal article83 is considered to be a key strength of the Flows approach as it provides a robust basis for informing strategic land use planning decisions in the Flows i.e. the edge effects map and local FCS guidance. This is a highly detailed and costly approach (in terms of direct costs and person days) that works well in the Flows case given the international significance of the natural heritage conservation issues (i.e. the Caithness and Sutherland peatland SPA / SAC). This strength is particularly relevant to the spatial analysis / ecosystem services based methods adopted in the Flows pilot (methods Nos. 1 – 3) as the science and evidence base underpins their application.
83 Modelling edge effects of mature forest plantations on peatland waders informs landscape scale conservation (Wilson et al, 2013): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12173/abstract [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 49 Final Report March 2015
Practical stakeholder meetings to discuss land use / management issues and build consensus: the indoor and site based meetings undertaken through the Flows pilot were highlighted in several of the evaluation interviews as key strengths of the approach. In particular, they provided an opportunity for stakeholders to input practical local knowledge into site level case work and decision-making i.e. Forest Plan approval. This is of direct relevance to Flow Country pilot Method No.4. Furthermore, the Flows approach, as per the various spatial analysis / ecosystem services based methods adopted (methods Nos. 1 – 3), was seen to provide a more objective articulation of sub-regional forest planning issues, especially in relation to high nature conservation value peatland habitats. In particular, the approach is seen to be highly applicable at the forest scale as a practical input to stakeholder meetings supporting rationally informed decision-making by consensus. Finally, the flexibility and understanding of FCS in the application of the strategic edge effects guidance / policy at the site level was seen as a key strength from a private sector perspective (Flows pilot methods Nos. 1 – 4). Key weaknesses of the Flow Country pilot and potential barriers to LUS delivery In addition to the strengths discussed above there are also a number of key weaknesses and drawbacks of the Flow Country pilot in terms of its potential to support and deliver effective sub- regional forest planning. Some of these weaknesses are highly specific to the Flows context whereas others are of wider relevance e.g. if Flows pilot methods and approaches were applied elsewhere in Scotland. These weaknesses / drawbacks can also act as barriers to the delivery of the LUS’ strategic objectives by constraining the integration and application of LUS Principles. Where relevant, the discussion below links the weaknesses / drawbacks identified in the Flow Country pilot evaluation to specific categories of barrier identified in the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project84. The following key weaknesses / drawbacks have been identified: Management focus on primary land use issues can constrain the delivery of multiple benefits: whilst enhancing key ecosystem services associated with high nature conservation value peatland habitats, the Flow Country pilot’s focus on peatland as a primary land use may constrain options for integrated land use and the associated delivery of multiple benefits / multiple revenue options for private land owners. This specific weakness is relevant to the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project barrier category land use policy interactions and constraints, especially the specific barrier significant areas of primary land use within a management area can constrain the delivery of multiple benefits85. This weakness is of wider relevance than just the Flows. Data limitations affecting accuracy of land use planning models: the edge effects model (see Flows method No.1) is dependent on accurate data on habitat characteristics in order to provide a robust assessment of restoration potential. The evaluation interviews highlighted the limitations of key datasets underpinning the model, potentially resulting in over / under estimation of restoration potential. This exemplifies the importance of site level assessment / case work (see Flows method No.4) but also raises potential confidence issues with the Flows pilot strategic planning guidance e.g. data limitations within the modelling may lead to a lack of trust between some stakeholders. This specific weakness is relevant to the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project barrier category86 methods and data.
84 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15] 85 See paragraphs 6.67 – 6.77 in Phillips et al (2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15] 86 See paragraphs 6.8 – 6.16 in Phillips et al (2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 50 Final Report March 2015
Public defensibility of the Flow Country pilot policy and framework: unlike a conventional, regional scale FWS, the Flows pilot has been undertaken as a ‘stand-alone’ exercise and is not embedded within a democratic Local Authority based process. As such, the strategic guidance within the edge effects map and local level FCS policy have not been tested through consultation with wider a stakeholder group e.g. the public and affected communities. As such, there is concern over the accountability of the Flows mechanism. This issue is specific to the Flows though a similar weakness was identified in the Cowal pilot also (see section 4.5). Lack of private sector involvement in the Peatland Partnership: as discussed at section 6.1 it is not entirely clear what impact the Peatland Partnership has on FCS related decision-making within the Flows i.e. Forest Plan approval. Despite this, the absence of private sector representation on the Partnership is a key concern given its overarching land use remit within the wider Caithness and Sutherland region.
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 51 Final Report March 2015
7. Synthesis and conclusions
7.1 Synthesis of key findings This section provides a synthesis of the evaluation’s key findings structured, where relevant, by evaluation question. General findings Key themes emerging from the evaluation: the evaluation has identified some nineteen themes for sub-regional forest planning. Theme No.7 on mechanisms was identified as the most important theme across all three pilots and all six categories of stakeholder engaged in the evaluation87. The role of consensus building as a mechanism for delivering a desired sub-regional forest plan was highlighted as a particularly important issue within Theme No.7 given the absence of ‘stick’ based mechanisms to regulate land use. Land use integration is an important consideration in sub-regional forest planning: Theme No.12 on land use interactions and integrated land use was identified as an important aspect of sub-regional forest planning in all three pilots. In essence, considering the wider land use impacts of forestry on the balance of different land uses within a management area (i.e. land use balance) is an important planning issue at this scale. In some instances it was felt that sub-regional forest plans effectively take on the role of an integrated land use framework (LUF) ‘by proxy’. Different aspects of sub-regional forest planning can be more or less important for different stakeholders: Theme No.12 (see above) was identified as a particularly important issue for Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) indicating that whilst FCS’ primary remit is forestry, wider land use issues are undoubtedly a key consideration. On the other hand, Theme No.15 on partnerships and governance is a high importance issue for Local Authorities and NGOs. Data and evidence is a critical issue for NGOs and private sector stakeholders in the Flow Country pilot: Theme 5 on data and evidence is a critical issue in the Flows given the contentious nature of the woodland removal policy its assessment underpins. This may be a particular issue for private sector forestry interests and conservation NGOs as these stakeholders arguably have the most to lose / gain from woodland removal. Processes used to develop the pilot frameworks A range of methods and approaches have been used by the pilots to develop policy frameworks and integrate LUS Principles: in terms of method categories identified in the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project88, methods used by the sub-regional forest planning pilots focus on spatial analysis, ecosystem services and stakeholder engagement / awareness- raising. Many of these methods appear to be working well and could be of wider relevance to sub-regional forest planning practice elsewhere in Scotland. Central importance of developing a more detailed understanding of local level forest planning issues: all three pilots focus on identifying, assessing and collating local level forest planning issues i.e. the main constraints and opportunities for forest development at the sub-regional scale. These collated lists of local issues are the primary means for securing new planting opportunities whilst maintaining a desired land use balance in the
87 See sections 2.3 and 3.3 for further information on the stakeholder categories engaged in the evaluation 88 See paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 in Phillips et al (2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 52 Final Report March 2015
management area, supporting the delivery of multiple benefits. All three pilots have sought to build consensus on the lists of local level planning issues through stakeholder engagement, recognising that consensus is the key mechanism for delivering a desired land use strategy in the absence of stronger land use regulation (see above). The Dumfries and Galloway (D&G) pilot adopts a particularly clear and structured approach to collating and presenting local level planning issues for each sub-region considered. A D&G type approach has also been used in the recently published Ayrshire and Arran FWS89. The main purpose of stakeholder engagement in sub-regional forest planning is to build consensus on local level planning issues: building consensus is critical as a mechanism for land use delivery (see above). To this end the pilots have used a range of stakeholder engagement approaches including 1-2-1 meetings, group meetings, workshops and site meetings to discuss the practical implications of sub-regional forest policy. There is a tendency to focus on technical stakeholders as opposed to the wider public and affected communities though the range of technical stakeholders engaged can be diverse e.g. statutory agencies, NGOs, private sector forestry interests, universities, deer management groups (DMGs) and representative bodies. None of the pilots adopted formal partnership working arrangements: this approach worked well for the D&G and Flow Country pilots: in the D&G case, a highly structured approach to stakeholder engagement was adopted and priority stakeholders were engaged early-on and bought in to the process; in the Flows case, there is a long history of partnership working and stakeholders are used to working together. Conversely, the absence of formal partnership working arrangements in the Cowal pilot caused some issues, primarily due to the cross-boundary nature of the pilot. Guiding local level land use decisions to deliver the LUS’ strategic objectives All ten LUS Principles are relevant to sub-regional forest planning: dependent on the specific context, all ten LUS Principles are relevant to sub-regional forest planning. The only Principle that was found to be non-applicable in some contexts was LUS Principle G on vacant and derelict land (VDL) which covers issues around assessment of the VDL resource, quantity and condition of VDL, constraints and opportunities etc. The pilots integrated the LUS Principles to varying degrees: whilst each pilot was developed to address specific local issues and circumstances, it is important to highlight that the D&G pilot integrated the LUS Principles most comprehensively (eight Principles were translated fully) in contrast to the Cowal and Flow Country pilots which only integrated two and three LUS Principles fully respectively. This echoes a key finding from the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project which found that “a broader range of LUS Principles (if not the full suite) are likely to be relevant to land use delivery mechanisms that encompass a broader spatial area” (Phillips et al, 2014 p.63). Furthermore, it must be stressed that there is a clear difference in scale (spatial extent) between the three pilots – i.e. the D&G pilot applied sub-regional analysis across the whole Local Authority area (seven sub- regions in total) whereas Cowal and the Flow Country focussed on specific sub-regions i.e. much smaller geographical areas. LUS Principle F on climate change has only been integrated fully by one pilot: LUS Principle F on climate change is critical given that the LUS is a requirement of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Full integration of LUS Principle F is premised on consideration of climate change mitigation and adaptation. LUS Principle F was only translated fully by the D&G pilot which included detailed consideration of mitigation
89 Ayrshire and Arran Forestry and Woodland Strategy (AAFWS Steering Group, 2014): http://www.aawp.org.uk/AAFWS_2014.pdf [accessed 19/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 53 Final Report March 2015
issues as well as some consideration of adaptation within the forestry sector and the role of forestry supporting adaptation in other sectors. This echoes a key finding from the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project which found that “translation of LUS Principle F on climate change was relatively poorly represented” (Phillips et al, 2014 p.30). Costs and benefits of the pilots The costs associated with developing the pilot frameworks are generally small: financial and in-kind (staff time) costs are small and may even be negligible where sub-regional forest planning is undertaken as part of a more traditional, regional scale FWS (as was the case with the D&G pilot) as opposed to a stand-alone exercise (Cowal and Flows). Costs associated with the Flow Country pilot are higher given the lengthy timescales involved and the contentious nature of woodland removal / greater need to build consensus through more extensive stakeholder engagement. The balance of costs and benefits associated with sub-regional planning is tipped in favour of benefits across all pilots: this may be particularly relevant for government agencies / regulators who frontload costs (officer time) to secure consensus around detailed local forest planning issues early-on to minimise costs associated with case work once the pilot framework is adopted. Strengths and weaknesses of the pilots The evaluation identified a range of strengths and weaknesses within the pilot project frameworks: for example, various aspects of stakeholder engagement were identified as key strengths of the Cowal pilot and stakeholder meetings / workshops provided an opportunity for networking and dialogue that might not otherwise have happened. There were no specific weaknesses or drawbacks to the D&G pilot approach. Data limitations were identified as key weaknesses within the Cowal and Flow Country pilots: the accuracy and / or granularity of key datasets, as inputs to land use planning models and spatial analyses, was identified as a key weakness in both the Cowal and Flow Country pilots. The absence of ‘perfect data’ in this regard highlights the importance of site level assessment / FCS forest planning case work as a key regulatory ‘backstop’ to ensure that practical land management decision-making on the ground is aligned to regional and / or sub-regional forest plans and strategies.
7.2 National level policy opportunities and issues It is recognised that all three sub-regional pilots, whilst having a distinct focus on forestry, have taken a broader view in terms of land use conflicts and aimed to integrate different land based objectives where possible – i.e. they have taken on the role of an integrated Land Use Framework (LUF) type mechanism ‘by proxy’ (see section 7.1 above). This integrated land use role is considered to be a key strength of all three pilots. However the evaluation research also highlighted some key national level policy issues that may be applicable elsewhere in Scotland and should therefore potentially be considered by the Scottish Government and FCS. These issues relate, in particular, to potential land use policy conflicts around peat and forestry. The evaluation identified how peat-forestry integration is arguably as important an issue as farm-forestry integration, especially given the potential range and value of ecosystem services provided by peatland (e.g. carbon storage and peatland biodiversity). As outlined further below, these issues are not easy to reconcile given the philosophical differences between key land use stakeholders and also the challenges inherent to sustainable management of peatland, not least the difficulties experienced by land owners raising revenue from the management of peatland (see conclusion No.7 in section 7.3 below).
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 54 Final Report March 2015
Potential limitations of national level FCS peat guidance for peatland dependant bird populations: there is a concern from some stakeholders (NGOs) that the national level FCS peat guidance90 may not be fit-for-purpose delivering the protection and enhancement of peatland habitats that support bird populations. Whilst the national level guidance affords protection to peatland functioning through its provision for a 100m buffer between forest edge and peatland (to account for hydrological impacts), it offers less protection for peatland dependent bird populations which experience forest edge effects at much greater distances. This issue has been addressed in the Flow Country pilot (see Chapter 6) through the development of specific local level FCS guidance91 that recommends a buffer distance of up to 800m to account for edge effects on key bird species (dunlin and golden plover). Whilst the situation in the Flows is very specific as a result of the scale and importance of the blanket bog habitat and the bird populations it supports92, it is likely that there will be similar situations elsewhere in Scotland (i.e. where existing or proposed forestry is adjacent to peatland habitat supporting important bird populations) where the peatland habitat is not afforded additional protection on account of bird edge effects. Clearly there will always be trade-offs to be made between land based objectives in this regard (e.g. commercial forestry vs peatland biodiversity) and the Scottish Government, FCS and other land use stakeholders will need to rely on criteria (e.g. Natura 2000 status) to guide land use decision-making. Despite this, the Flows approach demonstrates how peat-forestry conflicts can be addressed in a transparent manner drawing on sound science. As such, there is potentially a case to be made for the adoption of a Flows type approach elsewhere in Scotland, where this sort of peat-forestry land use conflict occurs. Peat-forestry policy conflicts: the evaluation interviews highlighted concern amongst some stakeholders (NGOs) over conflicts between national level peat policy93 and national level forestry policy94 that states a presumption in favour of restocking at the second rotation. In particular, the option for ‘peatland edge woodland’ within the FCS’ recent supplementary guidance on forestry and peatland habitats95, whilst supporting the protection of forestry cover, is considered by some stakeholders (NGOs) to be a poor fit with wider peat objectives given the inherent challenges controlling woodland regeneration on adjacent better quality peatland habitats, in the interests of meeting the national afforestation target. In essence, some key stakeholders (NGOs) take the stance that ‘peat should be left as peat’ (or restored as peat) and that no form of forest development should be permitted / continued on or adjacent to peatland habitat, regardless of its conservation status. This represents a fundamental philosophical difference towards land management objectives that will undoubtedly be hard to reconcile through policy and guidance alone. That said, it is anticipated that the FCS’
90 Supplementary guidance to support the FC Forest and Peatland Habitats Guidance Note 2000 (FCS, 2014): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/peatland-habitats-supplementary-guidance.pdf [accessed 05/01/15] 91 Guidance to Forest Managers preparing Forest Plans within the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SAC / SPA (FCS, 2013) [not available online] 92 The Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands are designated as both a Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for habitat 93 Supplementary guidance to support the FC Forest and Peatland Habitats Guidance Note 2000 (FCS, 2014): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/peatland-habitats-supplementary-guidance.pdf [accessed 05/01/15] 94 Forestry Act 1967: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/10/contents [accessed 23/02/15] 95 Supplementary guidance to support the FC Forest and Peatland Habitats Guidance Note 2000 (FCS, 2014): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/peatland-habitats-supplementary-guidance.pdf [accessed 05/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 55 Final Report March 2015
forthcoming technical note to support the 2014 supplementary peat guidance96 should go some way to clarifying these issues and providing a more detailed explanation of the policy rationale (e.g. the case for a ‘peatland edge woodland’ category).
7.3 Conclusions The main conclusions from the evaluation are outlined below. Where relevant, these incorporate broad suggestions for future policy and practice in sub-regional forest planning. It should be noted however that as the evaluation research undertaken was based on only three pilot cases, the findings and conclusions are indicative only. In this regard, we would advise that the Scottish Government and FCS undertake further research and deliberation before any firm action on sub- regional forest planning policy and practice is taken (e.g. rolling out the approach more widely). 1. The benefits of the pilot frameworks identified in the evaluation have the potential to help realise new planting opportunities: many of the identified benefits of the pilot frameworks can help to make the case for further woodland expansion within the management area, supporting the WEAG’s rationale for sub-regional forest planning. Example benefits in this regard include: building consensus amongst stakeholders that additional forestry development can be accommodated (Cowal); and identifying fine grained planting opportunities within constrained landscapes (Dumfries and Galloway FWS). Given this, it may be appropriate to roll out sub-regional forest planning approaches more widely across Scotland, supporting the Scottish Government’s woodland expansion targets. Sub-regional planning may be particularly helpful where there are areas of potential land use conflict and / or where the Local Authority area is diverse (see Conclusion No.5). 2. A qualitative approach to assessing land use balance / cumulative effects of woodland creation is preferable: qualitative assessments of land use balance are preferable to ‘masterplanned’ approaches that attempt to quantify or prescribe the balance of different land uses within a management area e.g. by ‘drawing lines on a map’. Qualitative descriptors can provide a useful articulation of what matters in a management area (e.g. important land uses, key natural assets, management issues etc) and can reflect the dynamic nature of land use i.e. qualitative descriptors can be readily updated to account for land use / management changes on the ground. 3. Overall, whilst approaches need to be tailored to specific local circumstances, the Dumfries and Galloway model has a number of key strengths that could make it preferable in a range of forest planning contexts: despite this, it is important to stress that drawing a direct comparison between the three pilots is not necessarily appropriate or desirable. Each pilot has its own strengths and weaknesses and has been designed to address specific local circumstances and objectives. That said, the D&G pilot had a number of key strengths, no identified weaknesses and integrated all ten LUS Principles (eight Principles were integrated fully including LUS Principle F on climate change). Also, costs associated with sub-regional planning may be lower when integrated with a more traditional, regional scale FWS (sub-regional activities can be ‘piggy-backed’ onto regional activities e.g. stakeholder engagement) and the D&G model provides a very clear, structured approach for presenting sub-regional issues, potentially helping to expedite application procedures by providing clear guidance for applicants. Furthermore, a D&G type model has been adopted in the recently published Ayrshire and Arran FWS97.
96 Ibid 97 Ayrshire and Arran Forestry and Woodland Strategy (AAFWS Steering Group, 2014): http://www.aawp.org.uk/AAFWS_2014.pdf [accessed 19/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 56 Final Report March 2015
4. Sub-regional forest planning can increase the relevance of FWS to ‘bottom-up’ stakeholders: the sub-region is a much more meaningful scale for engaging ‘bottom-up’ stakeholders such as farmers and local communities. Better engagement in this regard can help to achieve agreement on local level issues, supporting forest planning by consensus. Notwithstanding this, there is generally a need for better engagement of the wider public and local communities in sub-regional forest planning. 5. The adoption of sub-regional forest planning approaches would add value to regional FWS in most contexts: sub-regional planning may be particularly relevant where the Local Authority area is highly diverse (e.g. in terms of landscape, management issues etc), where there is potential for land use tension / conflict or where there is a particular need to optimise land use change in order to deliver a desired balance of different land uses (including farming and forestry) within the management area. 6. Formal approaches to partnership working in sub-regional forest planning may not be necessary for the delivery of desired outcomes: this may particularly be the case where key priority stakeholders are involved early-on and buy-in to the planning process or where there is a long history of partnership working between relevant stakeholders. However formal partnership working approaches (e.g. where partners are required to sign-up to a formal partnership agreement or work under the prescriptions of a formalised Terms of Reference document) may be required where the management area crosses jurisdictional boundaries or where the first two criteria are not met. 7. Consensus building is a vital mechanism for the delivery of a desired land use strategy in the absence of suitable ‘stick’ based land use delivery mechanisms: there are limited opportunities to regulate for land use within the current land use delivery ‘landscape’ therefore building consensus around a desirable land use strategy is the key mechanism for delivery on the ground. This approach works where land use provides revenue (e.g. farming and forestry) but is less effective otherwise. In particular, land use / management change may be less likely to take place on private commercial land where there is no financial incentive to do so (new or better revenue). This is less of an issue for forestry (which provides revenue) but can constrain the delivery of integrated land use strategies that include provision for non-revenue providing land uses (e.g. peat). 8. On the whole, the balance of costs and benefits in sub-regional forest planning is tipped towards benefits: financial and in-kind (staff time) costs associated with sub-regional forest planning can be minimal, especially where the sub-regional aspects are delivered alongside more traditional, regional scale FWS aspects (see Conclusion No.3). There can be a particular benefit for statutory agency type stakeholders as front-loading costs (staff time) can reduce costs later on (e.g. staff time spent on forest planning case work). 9. Sub-regional mechanisms should be formally adopted by Local Authorities and subject to full public consultation: full consultation can increase the democratic accountability of sub-regional policy and frameworks, ensuring that mechanisms are robustly defensible. Formal adoption of sub-regional forest plans within Local Authorities (e.g. as supplementary guidance to Local Development Plans) can help to ensure that they are actively used as inputs to woodland creation application and Forest Plan consultations, by Local Authorities and other consultees.
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 57 Final Report March 2015
Appendix 1: Criteria for document review
Headline criteria Detailed criteria 1. Explicit and / or implicit This headline criterion will draw on the existing process focussed criteria consideration of LUS as used in the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project. These can be found in Principles Volume 2 Appendix 198 2. Evidence and explanation of Have the following methods / approaches / concepts99 been used? If so methods and approaches how have they been used? Are there any other methods or approaches used have the pilots used to that have been used? develop their frameworks Spatial analysis and integrate / apply the LUS Environmental assessment Principles Ecosystem services Partnership working and good governance Engagement and awareness-raising Planning and design Grants and incentives 3. Evidence and explanation of Is there any evidence of the following barriers / challenges100 having any key challenges, barriers been experienced in the development of the pilot project frameworks? or weaknesses experienced Were any other barriers / challenges identified? during the development of Methods and data the pilot project frameworks Grants, incentives and revenue Land manager skills, awareness and training Public awareness of land use issues Partnerships, governance and leadership Land use decision-making Land use policy interactions and constraints 4. Partnership working and What evidence is there of partnership working? What model(s) of stakeholder engagement partnership working have been used? See Headline criteria 2 also What evidence is there of engagement with stakeholders and local communities? What techniques have been used? See headline criteria 2 also
98 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project: Final Report – Volume 2 Appendices (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451117.pdf [accessed 31/07/14] 99 As an initial basis for the Task 2 document review, the broad categories of method / approach and barriers / weaknesses identified in Table 2 were taken from Chapters 5 and 6 respectively of the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Final Report (Phillips et al, 2014). Where relevant the document review considered specific issues within these broad categories. The broad categories were subsequently updated with additional methods / approaches / barriers / weaknesses identified through the document review process 100 Ibid
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 58 Final Report March 2015
Appendix 2: Pre-determined codes used in analysis
Code Description Codes relevant to Evaluation Question No.1: what processes have been followed in the development of the three pilot projects? PC1_Methods and Methods / approaches used to develop the pilot frameworks or integrate and apply approaches the LUS Principles – may be supported by one or more specific method codes PC2_Mechanisms How the pilot may have a practical input to shaping land use / management decision-making on the ground PC3_Stakeholder Stakeholder and public engagement in the development of the pilot framework – engagement may be supported by one or more specific engagement codes PC4_Partnership Partnership working – may be supported by one or more specific partnership working working codes PC5_Data Data used in planning and any issues / shortcomings with data – may be supported by one or more specific data codes PC6_Spatial analysis Highlights where spatial analysis (as per the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project method categorisation) has been identified as a method used to support the development of the pilot framework PC7_Environmmental Highlights where environmental assessment (as per the LUS Delivery Evaluation assessment Project method categorisation) has been identified as a method used to support the development of the pilot framework PC8_Ecosystem Highlights where ecosystem services (as per the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project services method categorisation) has been identified as a method used to support the development of the pilot framework PC9_Partnership Highlights where partnership working and good governance (as per the LUS Delivery working and good Evaluation Project method categorisation) has been identified as a method used to governance support the development of the pilot framework PC10_Engagement Highlights where engagement and awareness raising (as per the LUS Delivery and awareness-raising Evaluation Project method categorisation) has been identified as a method used to support the development of the pilot framework PC11_Planning and Highlights where planning and design (as per the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project design method categorisation) has been identified as a method used to support the development of the pilot framework PC12_Grants and Highlights where grants and incentives (as per the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project incentives method categorisation) has been identified as a method used to support the development of the pilot framework Codes relevant to Evaluation Question No.4: do the costs associated with developing the pilot framework justify the benefits? PC13_Costs Highlights where specific costs of the pilot frameworks have been identified PC14_Benefits Highlights where specific benefits of the pilot frameworks have been identified PC15_Sub-regional Highlights criteria that can be used to prioritise the use of a sub-regional approach analysis prioritisation (i.e. given additional resource that may be required etc) criteria Codes relevant to Evaluation Question No.5: what strengths, weaknesses and elements of good-practice can be identified from the pilot project frameworks? PC16_Strengths Highlights aspects of the pilot frameworks that are seen to be working well PC17_Weaknesses Highlights aspects of the pilot frameworks that are seen to be working less well – may be supported by one or more specific barrier codes
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 59 Final Report March 2015
Code Description PC18_Methods and Highlights where methods and data (as per the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project data barrier method categorisation) have been identified as a barrier to the development of the pilot framework PC19_Grants, Highlights where grants, incentives and revenue (as per the LUS Delivery Evaluation incentives and Project method categorisation) have been identified as a barrier to the development revenue barrier of the pilot framework PC20_Land manager Highlights where land manager skills, awareness and training (as per the LUS skills, awareness and Delivery Evaluation Project method categorisation) have been identified as a barrier training to the development of the pilot framework PC21_Public Highlights where public awareness of land use issues (as per the LUS Delivery awareness of land use Evaluation Project method categorisation) has been identified as a barrier to the issues development of the pilot framework PC22_Partnerships, Highlights where partnerships, governance and leadership (as per the LUS Delivery governance and Evaluation Project method categorisation) have been identified as a barrier to the leadership development of the pilot framework PC23_Land use Highlights where land use decision-making (as per the LUS Delivery Evaluation decision-making Project method categorisation) has been identified as a barrier to the development of the pilot framework PC24_Land use policy Highlights where land use policy interactions and constraints (as per the LUS interactions and Delivery Evaluation Project method categorisation) have been identified as a barrier constraints to the development of the pilot framework
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 60 Final Report March 2015
Appendix 3: Criteria to help identify integration of LUS Principles
Process issues Outcome issues LUS Principle What would this Principle Process related issues to What would this Principle Outcome related issues to look like in terms of process? consider in the evaluation look like as an outcome? consider in the evaluation A. Opportunities for land use to deliver Multiple benefits Are specific multiple The project, action or Do any projects deliver multiple benefits should be discussed benefits discussed and activity delivers more multiple benefits? encouraged Specific multiple named in documents, at than one benefit What are the key benefits named in meetings? In what ways objectives for the documents and meeting are they discussed? project and have they notes Are there a range of been realised? Aims or objectives of the stakeholders engaged in project or initiative the project beyond its cover a range of core area (either outcomes geographically or Range of stakeholders thematically)? How are involved they engaged? What Links across roles do they play e.g. departments/ partners, consultees? organisations At what point have they been involved? What parts of the organisation are involved in this? How is the project being implemented so as to ensure multiple benefits? B. Regulation should continue to Where appropriate, Did any plan or Affected groups Did any relevant plan or protect essential public interests efforts were made to programme put in place recognise that programme put in place whilst placing as light a burden on reduce any any requirements on requirements were any requirements? businesses as is consistent with requirements emerging other groups? designed to reduce the Where appropriate, is achieving its purpose. Incentives as a result of the plan or If appropriate, where burden of compliance there significant burden should be efficient and cost-effective programme there considerations as in complying with any to the burden of requirements?
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 61 Final Report March 2015
Process issues Outcome issues LUS Principle What would this Principle Process related issues to What would this Principle Outcome related issues to look like in terms of process? consider in the evaluation look like as an outcome? consider in the evaluation complying with these requirements? C. Where land is highly suitable for a The value of primary of Is there a clear primary Project is clear about Does the project reflect primary use (for example food land uses are identified use(s) for the land and priority land uses and wider strategies focused production, flood management, and recognised as part has this been discussed seeks to protect and/or on primary land use as water catchment management and of the decision-making and considered (e.g. enhance them appropriate e.g. for carbon storage) this value should be process floodplain, prime Spatial plans, woodlands, food, flood recognised in decision-making Reference is made to agricultural land etc)? management plans etc risk management? key related strategies How is that determined/ clearly delineate where Have areas reserved for (e.g. sector specific agreed (e.g. by referring land is highly suitable for primary land use been strategies) to other policies, a primary land use and integrated with other strategies, gathering explain why land uses within the input from key project area? stakeholders etc)? Has land ownership and land value been considered to help identify potential areas of land more suited to primary uses only (e.g. prime agricultural land, other high value land etc)? How is this identified primary use represented in decision making (e.g. as a non-negotiable)? D. Land use decisions should be Ecosystems services or In what ways are Project takes a holistic If appropriate has the informed by an understanding of the principles discussed as ecosystems services approach to land use use of ecosystem functioning of the ecosystems which part of project discussed within the and the benefits and services affected the they affect in order to maintain the Use of specific tools to project? services provided decision making benefits of the ecosystem services support consideration of Have specific tools been Project has sought to process? which they provide ecosystem function and used to support identify and assess the Has the project or
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 62 Final Report March 2015
Process issues Outcome issues LUS Principle What would this Principle Process related issues to What would this Principle Outcome related issues to look like in terms of process? consider in the evaluation look like as an outcome? consider in the evaluation ecosystem services in understanding of contribution of initiative taken steps to decision-making (e.g. ecosystem function and ecosystems and their restore ecosystems and GIS/spatial the potential related services to its ecosystem processes representation of value/distribution of stated aims and (e.g. natural drainage ecosystem services, ecosystem services? objectives processes, habitat integrated habitat Is there explicit The subsequent delivery networks, soil network modelling, reference to them e.g. of any related action on quality/stability etc) woodland opportunities used as a framework? Is the ground is designed mapping etc) there implicit reference to help protect and Decisions about land use e.g. a place based restore ecosystem include an assessment approach? health and increase of ecosystems (formal or Is the project framed provision/value of key informal) within an ecosystems ecosystem services This will potentially be approach? linked to Principle 1 – Were relevant multiple benefits stakeholders with an Engagement with interest in ecosystems relevant stakeholders involved in the project? with an interest in Is reference made to ecosystems strategies or initiatives which are based on ecosystem services or the ecosystems approach (e.g. the LUS)? E. Landscape change should be Landscapes and places In what ways, if at all, Project makes explicit If appropriate, how has managed positively and are discussed, at a scale are the places and reference to the the recognition of the sympathetically, considering the appropriate to the landscapes that are part symbolic meaning of importance of landscape implications of change at a scale decision-making of the project discussed? landscapes and place influenced the appropriate to the landscape in process, in terms of their Have specific tools and The subsequent delivery decision making? question, given that all Scotland’s symbolic meaning to guidance documents of any related action on landscapes are important to our communities and been used to support the ground is designed sense of identity and to our individual Scotland the consideration of to fit sensitively within and social wellbeing Where appropriate, the landscapes and place the landscape
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 63 Final Report March 2015
Process issues Outcome issues LUS Principle What would this Principle Process related issues to What would this Principle Outcome related issues to look like in terms of process? consider in the evaluation look like as an outcome? consider in the evaluation meaning and value of (e.g. SNH Talking about landscapes and sense of Our Place Toolkit, SNH place to communities core areas of wild land are sought from the map, LCAs, FC guidance communities themselves on Forests and Engagement with Landscapes etc)? relevant stakeholders Were relevant with an interest in stakeholders with an landscape interest in landscape involved in the project? Is reference is made to the Landscape Convention? Are the impacts of any development considered within their wider context? F. Land-use decisions should be Climate change is How were climate The project has made an If appropriate, how did informed by an understanding of the integral to project change impacts appropriate assessment the understanding of opportunities and threats brought discussions identified? of the implications of climate change impacts about by the changing climate. There is recognition or How were climate climate change affect the decision Greenhouse gas emissions associated an assessment as to the change mitigation Adaptation actions have making process? with land use should be reduced and challenges and and/or adaptation been integrated into the What were the most land should continue to contribute to opportunities presented opportunities identified? decision making context relevant climate change delivering climate change adaptation by a changing climate Where appropriate, the impacts and how was and mitigation objectives Reference is made to subsequent delivery of this determined? climate change impacts any related action on and adaptation the ground is designed Opportunities for land to help mitigate climate use and land change and to be management activities resilient to key climate to deliver climate change impacts change mitigation
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 64 Final Report March 2015
Process issues Outcome issues LUS Principle What would this Principle Process related issues to What would this Principle Outcome related issues to look like in terms of process? consider in the evaluation look like as an outcome? consider in the evaluation and/or adaptation are discussed G. Where land has ceased to fulfil a Reference is made to Did the project consider The regeneration and Has derelict or vacant useful function because it is derelict derelict or vacant land the use of derelict or utilisation of derelict land been used as part or vacant, this represents a within the vacant land? land forms part of the of the project? significant loss of economic potential documentation Was there any project outcomes Has the regeneration of and amenity for the community An assessment of the assessment as to how derelict and vacant land concerned. It should be a priority to potential derelict or much derelict or vacant been designed in such a examine options for restoring all such vacant land resource land there was in the way as to deliver land to economic, social or within the project area project area? multiple benefits? environmentally productive uses has been undertaken Was there any Utilising derelict land is assessment as to the considered as part of the condition of derelict or scope of the project vacant land in the project area and the constraints that this may pose in terms of regeneration (e.g. clean- up costs)? H. Outdoor recreation opportunities Evidence of Were opportunities for Promoting outdoor What are the potential and public access to land should be consideration of outdoor recreation and recreation and public opportunities for encouraged, along with the provision outdoor recreation and public access considered access forms part of the outdoor recreation and of accessible green space close to public access as part of within the project? project public access and how where people live, given their project development Were relevant have they been importance for health and well-being Engagement with stakeholders (including realized? relevant stakeholders local communities in with an interest in affected areas) with an outdoor recreation and interest in outdoor public access recreation and public Engagement with local access involved in the communities in the project? areas likely to be Were a range of outdoor affected to ascertain recreation activities and
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 65 Final Report March 2015
Process issues Outcome issues LUS Principle What would this Principle Process related issues to What would this Principle Outcome related issues to look like in terms of process? consider in the evaluation look like as an outcome? consider in the evaluation their needs as regards greenspace functions outdoor recreation, considered (e.g. parks access and provision of and gardens, small scale greenspace community growing, outdoor education etc)? I. People should have opportunities to Stakeholder and How are stakeholders Stakeholders and the Is there stakeholder or contribute to debates and decisions community engagement and communities public feel that they community support for about land use and management is integrated into project engaged in the project? contributed to decisions the project? decisions which affect their lives and planning discussions and In what ways and with that affect them their future decisions what objectives? Does the project have a stakeholder and community engagement plan? J. Opportunities to broaden our Opportunities for the In what ways has the People have become If appropriate, has the understanding of the links between public to engage with or project sought to raise involved in managing project raised the land use and daily living should be be made aware of the awareness of the role of the land and the awareness of the role of encouraged role of land are sought land to people’s lives? benefits it provides land in people’s lives? Raising awareness of the role of land forms part of the aims and objectives of the project
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 66 Final Report March 2015
Appendix 4: Sub-regional forest planning themes – pilot data
Key sub-regional forest planning themes identified – occurrence across Cowal, Dumfries and Galloway and Flow Country pilot specific data
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 67 Final Report March 2015
Appendix 5: Sub-regional forest planning themes – stakeholder data
Key sub-regional forest planning themes identified – occurrence across stakeholder specific data (FCS, Local Authorities and National Park Authority)
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 68 Final Report March 2015
Key sub-regional forest planning themes identified – occurrence across stakeholder specific data (NGO, Environmental Regulators and Private Sector)
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 69 Final Report March 2015
Appendix 6: Cowal pilot Evaluation Question No.2 detailed analysis
The table below documents the analysis undertaken for the Cowal pilot to answer Evaluation Question No.2 – do the pilot projects have the potential to guide local level decision-making to help meet the overall objectives of the LUS? The analysis considers the degree to which the LUS Principles have been integrated with the Cowal pilot’s policies and frameworks, using evaluation criteria as the basis for assessment. The evaluation criteria are listed above in Appendix 3. Further details of the Evaluation Question No.2 approach can be found at section 2.3 and in detail at paragraphs 3.3 – 3.13 in the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report101.
101 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 05/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 70 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments A. Multiple Integration within the pilot framework: TO A DEGREE benefits Land use balance and the focus on commercial forestry: a key driver for the Cowal pilot was the concern from some stakeholders that land use balance on the peninsula was becoming increasingly tipped in favour of commercial forestry. A key purpose of the pilot therefore was to make an objective assessment of land use balance to identify the scope (or not) for further forest development in the area. In this regard, the Cowal pilot arguably has a strong focus on assessing constraints to commercial forestry development (i.e. as a key primary land use) and a lesser focus on identifying opportunities for integrated land use and the delivery of multiple benefits. In many respects the intention of the Cowal pilot is to assess forestry constraints in detail to identify those forest development opportunities that do remain and the detailed issues that applicants will need to consider in order to realise these opportunities Commercial forestry as a constraint to multiple benefits: whilst some of the remaining woodland creation opportunities on Cowal could deliver multiple benefits (e.g. agro-forestry – see below), the Cowal pilot has identified the potential for more commercial forestry on the peninsula (subject to a number of constraints and external economic drivers) that would likely be less integrated / multifunctional. In this respect, the importance of the Cowal peninsula as a timber production area is highlighted in the Cowal pilot report102 thus: “...from a national strategic perspective Cowal has a comparative advantage and produces strategically significant amounts of timber” (Thomas, 2013 p.27). Similarly, evaluation interviews highlighted how the Cowal peninsula is perceived as a largely ‘commercial forestry area’ with one interviewee describing Cowal as a ‘Sitka factory’. Notwithstanding the points raised below, a continued focus on commercial forestry objectives on Cowal may constrain options for land to deliver multiple benefits Farm diversification supporting the delivery of multiple benefits: despite the above, the Cowal pilot has some implicit consideration of LUS Principle A type issues. In particular there is recognition that farm diversification will be essential for the sector’s survival given external factors that limit the economic viability of farming on the peninsula (see section 4.5 in the main report). This issue is managed in the Cowal pilot103 through a specific spatial analysis (see figure opposite and section 4.1 in the main report) that identifies search areas for the expansion of mixed farm woodlands, noting that agro-forestry can provide a range of benefits such as shelter for livestock and buildings, woodfuel, landscape and biodiversity. In conjunction with stakeholder engagement (see below), the spatial analysis identifies opportunities whereby farm holding restructuring can deliver multiple benefits e.g. protecting / creating sheep passes within existing or proposed forestry to provide
102 Cowal: Sub-regional Analysis of Woodland Creation Potential (Thomas, 2013) 103 The extant Argyll and Bute Council Woodland and Forestry Strategy includes a policy hook on farm woodland, thereby providing the rationale for a more detailed consideration of farm woodland opportunities and constraints within the Cowal pilot: http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/planning-and- environment/woodland%20and%20forestry%20strategy%20april%202011.pdf [accessed 31/12/14]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 71 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments access between in-bye and open hill land104. A further spatial analysis idea mooted in the Cowal pilot was the development of a map to depict isolated ‘islands’ of unused hill land that could be better integrated through farm holding restructuring, e.g. to create new sheep passes or to realise further planting opportunities. These ‘islands’ of unused (or underused) land are located on the open hill above the upper forest margin and as pockets of disconnected and underused openspace within existing forestry (noting however that the provision of some forest openspace is a key element of sustainable forest management within the UK Forestry Standard105). Through better forest design and farm holding restructuring, the intention is that these areas of land could be brought into some of form of productive use, potentially supporting the delivery of multiple benefits (e.g. better farm-forest integration). In addition, the use of Whole Farm Plans and Regional Farming / Forestry Forums were suggested as potential mechanisms to ensure the delivery of these multiple benefits (see sections 3.3, 4.1 and 4.5 in the main report) Guidance and policy supports multifunctional forestry on Cowal: although forest structure on the peninsula is very much tipped towards productive conifers (i.e. softwood forests as per RTRP106), the Cowal pilot emphasises how the RTRP woodland typologies “...are an artificial construct within a continuum of woodland types [and that] the UK [Forest Standard] also ensures multi-purpose delivery and diversity” (Thomas, 2013 p.18). Used effectively therefore, RTRP and UKFS (as key policy and guidance inputs to forest planning) can help to make the case for multifunctional forestry on Cowal, including within individual commercial forests Identifying forest scale multifunctionality through stakeholder engagement: the evaluation interview with the FCS Conservator highlighted multifunctionality as a key objective at the forest scale – i.e. there was a strong sense that individual forests should incorporate a range of woodland types and provide a range of benefits, in line with the UKFS (see above). To this end, the Cowal pilot utilised substantial stakeholder engagement (meetings with individual stakeholders and a large stakeholder group meeting) to scope out sub-regional issues and opportunities. This collated list of issues can provide the basis for sub-regional forest planning in terms of main issues, key local assets and priorities for woodland expansion (see section 4.1 in the main report). In particular, the detailed sub-regional issues identified through the Cowal pilot will provide part of the evidence base (e.g. in conjunction with the regional scale Argyll and Bute Council Woodland and Forestry Strategy) supporting the FCS Conservancy staff’s assessment of woodland creation proposals and Forest Plans. Example issues include the location of: 1) small pockets of better quality agricultural land that should be reserved for farming or agro-forestry; 2) key landscape sensitive areas that may constrain forest development; and 3) pockets of fertile, well flushed peat soils (including >50cm depth) that could support robust tree growth107. By building up a picture of sub-regional forest planning issues in this manner it is anticipated that forest land use / management decision-making could better support the delivery of multiple benefits through a more detailed understanding of constraints and opportunities. Input from a range of stakeholders is instrumental to this process in terms of the wide variety of local knowledge captured.
104 This type of intervention facilitates the integration of farming and forestry on the same or adjacent holdings by maintaining access to winter and summer grazings through existing or planned forestry 105 UK Forestry Standard – the government’s approach to sustainable forestry (FC, 2011): http://www.forestry.gov.uk/theukforestrystandard [accessed 06/01/15] 106 The Right Tree in the Right Place: Planning for Forestry and Woodlands (FCS, 2010): http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcfc129.pdf/$file/fcfc129.pdf [accessed 31/12/14] 107 Where ‘robust growth’ is defined as Yield Class 8 or above for Sitka spruce in line with the recently adopted Supplementary guidance to support the FC Forest and Peatland Habitats Guidance Note 2000 (FCS, 2014): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/peatland-habitats-supplementary-guidance.pdf [accessed 05/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 72 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments Furthermore, the use of targeted 1-2-1 stakeholder meetings and a wider group meeting are key methods / tools facilitating the stakeholder engagement B. Regulation Integration within the pilot framework: TO A DEGREE Streamlining the woodland creation application process: as outlined in the WEAG report108 a key purpose of sub-regional forest planning is to “provide clarity to applicants [and to] help reduce delays and uncertainty in the application process…” (WEAG, 2012p.9). As such, all three of the pilots are arguably doing something new to streamline / support the delivery of an existing regulatory regime – i.e. regulation by the FCS of new woodland creation. This is ‘Route No.3’ for integrating LUS Principle B – see paragraphs 3.10 – 3.13 in Phillips et al (2014) Streamlining by consensus and a more detailed understanding of sub-regional issues: as will all three pilots, Cowal’s main approach to streamlining is to build consensus around the key issues, constraints and opportunities for forest development at the sub-regional scale (i.e. the specific landscape, catchment, forest and farm scale issues that will need to be considered in the development of successful woodland creation proposals). This is achieved through a stakeholder engagement process that: 1) identifies detailed sub-regional issues from the perspective of individual stakeholders (e.g. key issues for the National Park Authority were focussed on landscape, recreation and biodiversity whereas the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society contact was more focussed on identifying areas of better quality land for summer grazing); and 2) works across all stakeholders to build consensus. By building up a more detailed picture of sub-regional forest design and planning issues, the intention is that applicants will be better able to reflect local level issues within their proposals, thereby expediting the application process – e.g. requiring fewer iterations between the applicant and FCS Conservancy staff before a proposal is approved Potential limitations of the Cowal pilot’s approach: whilst it is anticipated that the Cowal pilot will be effective supporting the FCS Conservancy staff’s case work and dialogue with prospective applicants, it is unclear how useful it will be to those stakeholders that weren’t directly involved in the pilot (e.g. a prospective woodland creation applicant). In particular, the detailed understanding of local issues identified through stakeholder engagement are not collated or presented in a structured / readily accessible manner (this is in contrast to the Dumfries and Galloway FWS pilot which clearly outlines local assets, main issues and woodland expansion priorities for each of the sub-regional management areas considered). Also, it is not known if the report outputs will be made available online / to the public. As discussed above, the key means by which the pilots may support the integration of LUS Principle B is by streamlining the woodland creation application process, from the perspective of both the FCS Conservancy staff and the applicant. If the Cowal pilot outputs109 are of limited accessibility and / or not available online, it is unclear how prospective applicants will be able to use the detailed sub-regional information to inform their proposals. This issue was reflected to a degree through evaluation interviews with key stakeholders other than FCS. For example, Argyll and Bute Council (ABC) would be unlikely to use the Cowal pilot work to inform their response to woodland creation consultations as: 1) the report has not been through a committee or formally adopted; and 2) due to resource constraints within the Council, ABC would be more likely to base their response on policy within the regional scale ABC Woodland and Forestry Strategy. Similarly, the National Park Authority would be unlikely to draw on the Cowal pilot due to the overriding importance of the landscape and biodiversity constraint within the north-eastern portion of Cowal that is encompassed by the
108 Report of the Woodland Expansion Advisory Group to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Environment, Richard Lochhead MSP (WEAG, 2012): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/WEAGFinalReport.pdf [accessed 05/01/15] 109 Cowal: Sub-regional Analysis of Woodland Creation Potential (Thomas, 2013)
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 73 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments National Park C. Primary use Integration within the pilot framework: YES Key primary land uses on Cowal: as discussed above in relation to LUS Principle A, assessing constraints to forest development (i.e. primary land uses) was a key objective of the Cowal pilot. Unsurprisingly therefore a number of key primary land uses (over and above commercial forestry) have been considered and assessed as part of the Cowal pilot. These include: 1) renewable energy; 2) native and ancient woodland habitat networks (important for biodiversity and landscape); 3) better areas of agricultural land (primarily hill farming); 4) areas of open-hill and other open- ground habitats that are important for landscape and biodiversity (e.g. habitat for birds); 4) areas of deep peat (carbon rich soils); and 5) diffuse pollution sensitive catchments that could be adversely or beneficially affected by forest development. Some of these primary land uses are illustrate on the figure below Methods and approaches used to assess primary land use on Cowal: the assessment of primary land use in the Cowal pilot focussed on the use of spatial analysis to identify key land uses that could constrain forest development. This ties in with the LUS Delivery Evaluation work which identified how almost half of the case studies used spatial analysis as a tool for assessing constraints to land use / management110. The Cowal spatial analysis considered a number of strategic constraints (e.g. landscape, deep peats, elevation, better quality agricultural land etc) that could be meaningfully mapped and assessed at the sub-regional scale, to identify broad land use categories for different types of forest development (i.e. the type of approach endorsed by RTRP). More granular / local level constraints were identified through stakeholder engagement and would be picked up through the woodland creation application process (see below). The spatial analysis was also informed by relevant policy – e.g. the FCS’ revised guidance111 on peatland habitats and forestry whereby the spatial analysis only ‘sieved out’ deep peats >50cm in depth Wider factors influencing primary land use on Cowal: crucially the Cowal pilot also highlighted how wider factors can influence how areas of primary land use are determined in practice. Firstly, an unforeseen impact of the previous Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on Cowal has been to maintain the agricultural land area at the same level whilst agricultural output (e.g. workforce and livestock numbers) has fallen over the same period, ostensibly as the Single Farm Payment (SFP) was based on cross-compliance / maintaining land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) as opposed to output. As a result, the incentive for land managers on Cowal to change land use from agriculture to other productive land uses, such as forestry, has been limited: “…the last 24 years (1989 – 2013) have seen no significant woodland creation with the agricultural area remaining static…” (Thomas, 2013 p.16). In effect, the area of agricultural primary land use has been heavily influenced / ‘propped-up’ by the CAP even though production has fallen and the viability of
110 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 05/01/15] 111 Supplementary guidance to support the FC Forest and Peatland Habitats Guidance Note 2000 (FCS, 2014): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/peatland-habitats-supplementary-guidance.pdf [accessed 05/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 74 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments farming on Cowal is in question (see below). Conversely, external market forces are beginning to exert a stronger influence on land use balance across the peninsula in favour of forestry. In particular there is a concern that the “fundamental economics of the agricultural sector [on Cowal] may become untenable” (Thomas, 2013 p.23) as a result of rising input costs (e.g. feed, transport etc) and uncertainty about future CAP support. On the other hand, timber prices are enjoying a particularly buoyant period (demand for biomass etc) and without successors, Cowal farmers may be tempted to sell up to forestry developers. This issue was highlighted strongly in two of the evaluation interviews, especially the notion that Cowal land is much better suited to forestry than farming and also the perception that Cowal is a forestry area / ‘Sitka factory’. The manner in which farming and forestry are both exposed to the uncertainty of markets and the grants / incentives regime was also highlighted in this regard. The above highlights how there are very limited options to regulate for integrated land use – market forces and (at least the previous) CAP regime tend to favour primary land uses Data issues in the assessment of primary land use: as discussed above, spatial analysis was used to assess strategic constraints to forest development, thereby determining key areas of primary land use (deep peats, landscape sensitive areas etc). However there are accuracy problems with key input datasets to the spatial analysis, especially peat soils and better quality agricultural land – i.e. the Macaulay land capability for agriculture dataset112. Peat soils are identified as a ‘highly variable commodity’ on Cowal and the granularity of the existing peat soils dataset is seen as a key limiting factor in the identification of sub-regional peat constraints. Poor resolution of peat soils data was also identified as a key barrier in the LUS Delivery Evaluation work113. The robustness and utility of the Macaulay land capability for agriculture dataset as a means of identifying areas of better quality agricultural land (i.e. as a primary land use) was also criticised in the Cowal pilot. In particular, the Macaulay classification is considered to be “rough and ready in less intensive agricultural areas and only reflecting the productive potential of the land, not the actual productive land use” (Thomas, 2013 p.20). Given this, there is concern that the Macaulay dataset may underestimate the agricultural value of land in areas such as Cowal, thereby limiting its utility for identifying areas of agricultural primary land use. It was suggested that local knowledge combined with census and CAP Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) field data could provide a better proxy of agricultural land value in less intensive agricultural areas such as Cowal The importance of site level assessment to validate primary land use: as discussed above the Cowal pilot identified key issues in relation to data availability and accuracy. The variability of peat soils across the peninsula was highlighted as a particular issue and the peat dataset was not considered appropriate for strategic (sub-regional) or farm scale forest planning. This clearly impacts the validity of primary land use peatlands identified using this dataset (see figure above). As a result, the Cowal pilot endorsed a pragmatic approach using site level assessment to validate strategic constraints identified at the sub-regional scale (see LUS Principle B also). In practice this would be a process of dialogue between FCS Conservancy staff and the applicant. Site level assessment also provides an opportunity for consideration of other constraints / primary land use issues that are too granular to consider in the strategic / sub-regional assessment (e.g. archaeology, LBAP habitats etc) D. Ecosystem Integration within the pilot framework: TO A DEGREE services Use of the ecosystems approach: the Cowal pilot discusses the ecosystems approach in relation to the cumulative impacts of forest development on land use balance.
112 The Macaulay Land Capability for Agriculture (LCA) assessment dataset: http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/explorescotland/lca.html [accessed 05/01/15] 113 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 05/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 75 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments There is discussion about the relative merits of a ‘comprehensive ecosystems approach’ versus an ‘ecosystem services philosophy’ where the latter is seen as more light touch and less resource intensive114. The ‘ecosystem services philosophy’ has ostensibly been adopted in the Cowal pilot though it is unclear how. This sort of approach could be used to develop a broad understanding of the range of ecosystem services provided by a management area, such as the Cowal peninsula, to inform discussions and options around land use balance – e.g. which land uses are important for ecosystem service provision, are the service ‘hotspots’ etc Stakeholder engagement to identify ecosystem service issues: as discussed above (see LUS Principles A and B assessment) stakeholder engagement has been used extensively in the Cowal pilot to understand sub-regional forest planning issues. Unsurprisingly many of the issues identified are, in essence, key ecosystem services that the peninsula provides already or could provide more of given desired land use changes. Key examples identified are landscape, crops, livestock and forestry. Given the focus on farming and forestry stakeholders it is unsurprising that many of the ecosystem service type issues identified are akin to provisioning services Basic ecosystem service assessment: linking in with the adoption of an ‘ecosystem services philosophy’ (see above), certain methodological tasks undertaken in the Cowal pilot could be perceived as addressing key ecosystem service issues. In particular, the spatial analysis of constraints (see LUS Principle C assessment above) is, in essence, a simplistic ecosystem service assessment to better understand the value of land from an ecosystems perspective. Although there is no value assessment per se (e.g. to understand the value of one land parcel for a given service relative to another), the spatial analysis effectively maps the provision of key ecosystem services across the management area, showing where individual services are present or not present and where multiple services are clustered together. For example the mapping of Landscape Character Types (LCTs) provides a proxy for the final ecosystem service115 ‘environmental settings’ and the mapping of peat soils provides a proxy for ‘equable climate’. This sort of basic ecosystem service assessment was identified as a key method / approach in the LUS Delivery Evaluation work116, including in both of the FWS case studies considered Use of Integrated Habitat Network (IHN) model data to understand ecosystem function issues: native broadleaved and ancient woodland IHN data has been used to understand the functioning of key landscape scale ecosystem processes, namely ecological connectivity. IHN modelling was identified in the LUS Delivery Evaluation work117 as a key tool supporting consideration of LUS Principle D type issues, especially ecosystem functioning E. Landscape Integration within the pilot framework: TO A DEGREE change Consideration of landscape and place: landscape is a particularly important forest planning issue on the peninsula and has been considered to a degree within the Cowal pilot as part of the spatial analysis and stakeholder engagement components (see below). The consideration of LUS Principle E type issues in the pilot is arguably more focussed on an assessment of land use balance between farming and forestry with limited consideration of more subtle issues such as the notion of place. The absence of community engagement (e.g. due to resource limitations) will undoubtedly limit the validity of the pilot in this regard
114 Ecosystem services in environmental assessment – help or hindrance? (Baker et al, 2013): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925512000996 [accessed 05/01/15] 115 The UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UKNEA) differentiates between ‘final ecosystem services’ that are the final output of ecosystems before some human intervention / management is required to add value and convert them to ‘goods’: http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/ [accessed 05/01/15] 116 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 05/01/15] 117 Ibid
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 76 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments Consideration of landscape issues within spatial analysis: key landscape datasets have been incorporated with the spatial analysis to remove areas from consideration that would not be appropriate for certain types of forest development. In effect, spatial analysis and relevant spatial datasets have been used as a tool supporting consideration of LUS Principle E type issues. For example, datasets on National Scenic Areas (NSA) and Gardens and Designed Landscapes have been incorporated with the assessment of search areas for productive conifer woodlands to scope out landscape sensitive areas for this type of forestry. An additional key dataset in this regard is the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs NPA area which is an important landscape constraint in its own right. It is not clear how the LCT data on Map M16 has been used in the spatial analysis though the author expresses concern over how the “[landscape character] assessments were carried out a number of years ago in an era where the economic and environmental benefits of productive forestry were perhaps less appreciated” (Thomas, 2013 p.11), exemplifying the tensions between productive land uses and landscape conservation Stakeholder engagement supporting landscape planning: as discussed above, stakeholder engagement is a key component of the Cowal pilot, supporting the identification of sub-regional forest planning issues. Two of the stakeholders engaged in the pilot had a distinct landscape remit – the Land Manager from the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs NPA and a Senior Planner from ABC. Both of these stakeholders identified key landscape issue that were subsequently considered in the pilot e.g. the significance of the NSA, planning policy on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQ) as a constraint to development that can be mitigated through sensitive design, identifying key views that should be maintained etc. These issues have been translated into detailed considerations within the pilot e.g. how “adjusting the forest margin to reflect the ebb and flow of ridges and gullies could enhance the landscape and reduce eagle conflicts” (Thomas, 2013, p.10) F. Climate Integration within the pilot framework: TO A DEGREE change Limited consideration of LUS Principle F type issues: in general, consideration of land use / management and climate change issues within the Cowal pilot is limited. As a consideration in sub-regional forest planning, climate change is only really discussed in an implicit sense in the context of peat soils as a constraint (i.e. a primary land use – see LUS Principle C above) to forest development. The role of peat soils in carbon management / climate change mitigation is not discussed though there is some discussion of options for planting on deep peat (>50cm) where peat soils are well flushed and have the potential to support robust tree growth. Adopting an ecosystems approach in forest planning, as intimated in the Cowal pilot (see LUS Principle D above), should identify the value of peat soils (especially deep peats) providing climate regulation ecosystem services and therefore a potential trade-off between provisioning (timber) and regulating (climate) services. In this respect it is unclear how the Cowal pilot’s ecosystems approach has been used to consider the climate change mitigation related ecosystem services provided by peat soils. In addition, the potential loss of woodland cover at the second rotation, where existing forestry is planted on deep peats, has been mapped and assessed using the peat soils dataset (see figure above). This issue is discussed exclusively in terms of its impact on forestry without consideration of possible benefits for soil
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 77 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments carbon / climate change mitigation No consideration of adaptation issues: whilst the Cowal pilot included some limited consideration of climate change mitigation (see above), there was no implicit or explicit consideration of adaptation issues e.g. no discussion of climate change risks / opportunities and no mention of impacts or adaptation. This is arguably a key omission given the potential role of forestry in climate risk manaement (e.g. as a structural measure in sustainable flood risk management) and also the key opportunities that climate change raises for the forestry sector (e.g. in terms of increase of potential yield of Sitka spruce and a reduction in snow and frost damage118). Although these opportunities are arguably more relevant to forest management, they are also relevant for forest planning e.g. increasing the upper margin of forests by planting at higher elevations. This is a particular issue on Cowal given the more limited opportunities for new planting on the middle hill and the relative abundance of unplanted open upland hill areas (though this in itself is a constraint to forest development on landscape grounds – see LUS Principle E above). This less comprehensive consideration of LUS Principle F was also identified as an issue in the LUS Delivery Evaluation work119 – “…LUS Principle F on climate change was relatively poorly represented in the sense that a small majority of case studies (six) only translated it to a degree with a small minority (five) translating it fully” (Phillips et al, 2014 p.30). LUS Principle F was seen as particularly challenging given its dual focus on climate change mitigation and adaptation120 G. Vacant and Integration within the pilot framework: N/A derelict land Vacant and Derelict Land (VDL) was not considered in the Cowal pilot and is not considered to be relevant given the remote rural context H. Outdoor Integration within the pilot framework: TO A DEGREE recreation Opportunities for community woodlands: the spatial analysis approach undertaken and access in the Cowal pilot included a specific methodology to identify search areas for urban fringe and community woodlands. In essence the approach ‘sieved out’ key constraints / primary land uses (see figure within the LUS Principle C assessment) and then buffered settlement boundaries by 1km to identify a gross search area. The difference between preferred and potential land use categories for this type of forest development is then discerned with reference to the Macualay LCA dataset (e.g. lower quality agricultural land is assessed as preferred). The approach also mapped existing community forestry and existing Forest Enterprise (FE) land ownerships within the 1km settlement buffer. The fomer identifies existing community assets that could be enhanced and the latter land in public ownership that may be more easy to develop for community forestry (see figure opposite). Whilst this aspect of the
118 Climate Change Risk Assessment for Scotland (HR Wallingford et al, 2012): http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectI D=15747#RelatedDocuments [accessed 06/01/15] 119 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 05/01/15] 120 Ibid
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 78 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments pilot did not identify any specific objectives for community forest development on Cowal, one could infer that outdoor recreation and public access may be considered e.g. providing for walking / jogging / mountain bike trails, facilitating access between adjacent settlements etc No engagement of local communities: a key reason why LUS Principle H has only been assessed as integrated ‘to a degree’ is the poor engagement of local communities in affected areas. This is quite feasibly due to resource limitations within the Cowal pilot (i.e. the available resource only covered engagement with technical stakeholders – see LUS Principle H) though it is still a key omission given the importance of engaging those stakeholders that will use the land based / outdoor recreation and access provision I. Involving Integration within the pilot framework: TO A DEGREE people Effective engagement of technical stakeholders: as discussed variously above, stakeholder engagement is central to the Cowal pilot approach, particularly in terms of identifying detailed issues to inform sub-regional forest planning and building consensus on what the main issues are. Furthermore, specific methods were used for each of these objectives – detailed issues were identified through 1-2-1 stakeholder interviews while consensus building was achieved through the use of group meetings. In essence, this approach could be considered to be a fairly detailed ‘consultation plan’ given the structured nature of the engagements. Whilst the scope of these interviews and meetings was arguably quite limited there is clear recognition within the Cowal pilot that “the emphasis of the project was on the interaction between farming and forestry, so the consultation has been weighted towards this” (Thomas, 2013 p.21). Despite this, stakeholder engagement was identified as a key strength of the Cowal pilot in two (of three) evaluation interviews e.g. the wider stakeholder group meeting was felt to be really good / useful, especially given the range of interests represented including key representative bodies such as NFUS as well some local land owners and commercial interests Poor consideration of wider stakeholders: as discussed above in the LUS Principle H assessment, the engagement of local communities and wider technical stakeholders is a key omission within the Cowal pilot. Whilst stakeholder engagement was identified as a strength of the pilot in evaluation interviews, it was also identified as a weakness due to the lack of wider stakeholder engagement. This is a particular concern given that potentially controversial forest development issues were not tested with a broad range of stakeholders – e.g. the engagement arguably focussed on ‘productive land use’ stakeholders (farmers and foresters) as opposed to those with a natural environment, community, access or landscape remit. In essence there is a concern that it is easy to build consensus when stakeholders are approaching the management issue with broadly similar objectives. The poor engagement of local communities and wider publics (e.g. groups of people that use Cowal for recreational purposes such as walking and sailing) in particular is critical given the central importance within the LUS121 itself of “urban and rural communities [that are] better connected to the land, with more people enjoying the land and positively influencing land use” (Scottish Government, 2011 p.3) J. Land use and Integration within the pilot framework: YES the daily Restructuring farm holdings to encourage new entrants: the sale and / or living link restructuring of farm holdings (e.g. as a result of farmers having limited options for succession and being forced to sell) may present opportunities for different models of farming that can provide opportunities for new entrants that may not otherwise have existed. In particular the sale of smaller farm holdings could present opportunities for
121 Getting the best from our land – a land use strategy for Scotland (Scottish Government, 2011): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/345946/0115155.pdf [accessed 06/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 79 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments so called ‘hobby farmers’ or new entrants with more limited financial means. This may be more of an indirect consequence of external market forces / CAP reform (see LUS Principle C assessment) as opposed to a planned land use intervention but it raises opportunities for land based enterprise that may not have otherwise existed Farm-forestry integration: the Cowal pilot highlights how “the forestry and farming workforce can be interchangeable on occasions, and this allows time and equipment to be more effectively used” (Thomas, 2013 p.24). A key example is woodfuel production from small scale farm forests using existing agricultural machinery. In essence, closer integration between farming and forestry on Cowal (e.g. developing the fairly extensive opportunities for mixed farm woodlands) could be a key strategy for farm diversification, supporting farming on Cowal and keeping people in agricultural land based employment Community forestry: as discussed at the LUS Principle H assessment, the Cowal pilot includes a specific spatial analysis methodology to identify opportunities for community forestry. Community forestry practice in the UK and elsewhere has a long track record of providing opportunities for people to develop practical land management skills through volunteering122
122 England’s Community Forests what we do pages: http://www.communityforest.org.uk/whatwedo.htm [accessed 06/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 80 Final Report March 2015
Appendix 7: D&G pilot Evaluation Question No.2 detailed analysis
The table below documents the analysis undertaken for the Dumfries and Galloway pilot to answer Evaluation Question No.2 – do the pilot projects have the potential to guide local level decision-making to help meet the overall objectives of the LUS? The analysis considers the degree to which the LUS Principles have been integrated with the Dumfries and Galloway pilot’s policies and frameworks, using evaluation criteria as the basis for assessment. The evaluation criteria are listed above in Appendix 3. Further details of the Evaluation Question No.2 approach can be found at section 2.3 and in detail at paragraphs 3.3 – 3.13 in the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report123.
123 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 05/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 81 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments A. Multiple Integration within the pilot framework: YES benefits FWS provides a strong basis for forest development (and land use more generally) to deliver multiple benefits: the overarching objectives and context for the D&G pilot have a strong focus on land use delivering multiple benefits. This applies across the two ‘tiers’ of the FWS124 – i.e. the overarching themes that are of general relevance at the regional scale (see Part 3 of the FWS) and the more detailed issues identified at the sub-regional scale (see Part 5 of the FWS). In particular, the FWS identifies how restructuring the 1950s-80s softwood plantations (i.e. at second or third rotation) presents a key opportunity to increase the multifunctionality of D&G forestry supporting the delivery of a range of multiple benefits (e.g. outdoor recreation, landscape, biodiversity and the employment opportunities associated with harvesting, transport and processing). Furthermore, the evaluation interviews highlighted the D&G pilot’s focus on promoting land use balance within the region through the identification of a range of generic (aspatial – of relevance anywhere), strategic (regional scale) and local (sub-regional scale) land use planning issues for consideration in forest development. The relatively detailed consideration of these wider land use issues is arguably a key strength of the D&G pilot (see section 5.5 in the main report), helping to ensure that existing land uses and other natural / cultural heritage assets are protected (where appropriate) through sensitive forest planning and design. Maintaining land use balance and protecting key assets in this manner can then help to ensure that land within the management area continues to provide the desired range of multiple benefits. This type of approach was adopted, to a degree, in the Cowal pilot also (see section 4.1 and Appendix 6) Identification of specific multiple benefits that forest development should deliver: the D&G pilot discusses a range of specific multiple benefits that forest development in the region has the potential to deliver. The Scottish Forestry Strategy125 (SFS) is identified as setting the strategic context in this regard identifying broad themes that provide the framework for forest development and associated delivery of multiple benefits (e.g. climate change mitigation, timber production, community development, wellbeing, access etc). The SFS’ themes have been translated into specific themes in the D&G FWS that establish a more focussed framework defining the types of multiple benefits that will be delivered. These are closely aligned to the SFS though there is also specific mention of climate change adaptation (see LUS Principle F assessment also). Furthermore, the FWS highlights the importance of “encouraging ecosystem processes in forests and woodlands to contribute multiple benefits” (D&G Council, 2014 p.14) as a specific issue in relation to biodiversity enhancement and diffuse pollution management. Restructuring is identified as a particular opportunity for forest development to provide a very broad range of enhanced outdoor recreation activities (see LUS Principle H assessment also). Although the benefits identified are largely aspatial, the D&G pilot includes a mechanism for their consideration and delivery locally through the collated list of local forest planning issues that have been identified for each of the sub-regions (see Part 5 of the FWS and below) Identification of sub-regional issues supporting integrated land use and delivery of multiple benefits: as discussed above, the D&G pilot’s focus on land use balance has the potential to support more integrated forest developments, supporting the delivery of multiple benefits. In particular, the specific sub-regional aspect of the D&G FWS takes a structured approach to the identification of local level issues as follows: 1) overview and description of the area; 2) existing woodland resource; 3) local assets (e.g. important landscapes, tourism and recreation destinations, fisheries etc); 4) main issues (e.g. diffuse pollution from agriculture, high value agricultural land as a
124 Dumfries and Galloway Forestry and Woodland Strategy (D&G Council, 2014): http://www.dumgal.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=15086&p=0 [accessed 07/01/15] 125 Scottish Forestry Strategy (Scottish Executive, 2006): http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/fcfc101.pdf/$FILE/fcfc101.pdf [accessed 07/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 82 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments constraint to forest development etc); 5) priorities for woodland management; and 6) priorities for new woodlands. This more detailed understanding of local issues, constraints and opportunities can therefore help to ensure that forest development is integrated with other important land uses, supporting sustained delivery of multiple benefits from the management area (see above also). This was identified in the evaluation interviews as a key strength of the D&G pilot and was seen as an important opportunity and mechanism to address farm-forestry conflicts, promoting greater integration and the delivery of multiple benefits. The broad, well-structured approach to stakeholder engagement provided the means for identifying sub-regional land use planning issues (see LUS Principle I assessment) B. Regulation Integration within the pilot framework: YES Streamlining the woodland creation application process: as outlined in the WEAG report126 a key purpose of sub-regional forest planning is to “provide clarity to applicants [and to] help reduce delays and uncertainty in the application process…” (WEAG, 2012p.9). As such, all three of the pilots are arguably doing something new to streamline / support the delivery of an existing regulatory regime – i.e. regulation by the FCS of new woodland creation. This is ‘Route No.3’ for integrating LUS Principle B – see paragraphs 3.10 – 3.13 in Phillips et al (2014) Streamlining by consensus and a more detailed understanding of sub-regional issues: as will all three pilots, the D&G FWS’ main approach to streamlining is to build consensus around the key issues, constraints and opportunities for forest development at the sub-regional scale (i.e. the six different issue categories listed above at the LUS Principle A assessment that will need to be considered in the development of successful woodland creation proposals). This is achieved through a structured stakeholder engagement process that is discussed further at the LUS Principle I assessment below. By building up a more detailed picture of sub-regional forest design and planning issues, the intention is that applicants will be better able to reflect local level issues within their proposals, thereby expediting the application process – e.g. requiring fewer iterations between the applicant and FCS conservancy staff before a proposal is approved. This ties in closely with the WEAG’s key purpose for sub- regional forest planning (see above). In contrast to the Cowal pilot however (see Appendix 6), the D&G pilot very clearly sets out the range of issues that applicants will need to consider within each sub-region (see figure above). In essence, the D&G FWS provides very clear guidance to applicants on sub-regional forest planning issues, potentially supporting a more streamlined application process (see figure above). At this time however there are no cases that have been fully tested against the D&G pilot framework therefore it is impossible to say whether or not the approach will realise any tangible benefit over a more standard, regional scale approach to FWS. This issue
126 Report of the Woodland Expansion Advisory Group to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Environment, Richard Lochhead MSP (WEAG, 2012): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/WEAGFinalReport.pdf [accessed 05/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 83 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments was identified in all of the D&G pilot evaluation interviews C. Primary use Integration within the pilot framework: YES Approaches for assessing and determining key areas of primary land use: the D&G pilot adopts a structured, comprehensive approach to assessing forest development constraints / primary land use issues (example primary land uses are outlined below). In summary, the D&G approach considers three ‘tiers’ of constraint / primary land use issue: 1) generic constraints “which could be applicable to most forms of planting and are not necessarily related to a specific geographic area” (D&G Council, 2014 p.56); 2) strategic constraints “which can be mapped at the regional level to establish more and less suitable areas for different types of woodland” (D&G Council, 2014 p.57); and 3) local / sub-regional constraints “which can’t be mapped at a regional scale or do not apply to all potential new planting but are equally important” (D&G Council, 2014 p.70). These three ‘tiers’ of primary land use issue have been identified primarily through a process of stakeholder engagement (see LUS Principle I assessment) but also with reference to key related plans and policies e.g. identifying diffuse pollution sensitive catchments with reference to Water Framework Directive (WFD) / River Basin Management Planning (RBMP) mechanisms127 and locally important habitats and species through the Local Biodiversity Action Plan128 (LBAP) process.
The evaluation interviews highlighted consensus around the issues as the key mechanism by which primary land use / LUS Principle C type issues will influence practical land use / management decision-making on the ground – i.e. applicants should ensure that their proposals account for the identified issues with proposals then tested through FCS regulatory processes. There is a degree of flexibility inherent to this process in that primary land use issues are not necessarily ‘non-negotiable’ in forest planning decision-making – e.g. it may be possible to address some constraints through sensitive forest design, even in areas where land has been assessed strategically as sensitive to forest development. The strategic constraints have been
127 SEPA river basin planning pages for the Solway Area Advisory Group: http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning/area_advisory_groups/solway.aspx [accessed 08/01/15] 128 Dumfries and Galloway LBAP (D&G LBAP Partnership, 2009): http://www.dumgal.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2727&p=0 [accessed 08/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 84 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments integrated through a spatial analysis ‘sieving’ approach, in line with the RTRP guidance129, to identify land use categories for forest development (preferred / potential / sensitive). A similar approach was adopted in the Cowal pilot (see Appendix 6) and spatial analysis to define constraints for land use / management was identified as a key method for applying LUS Principle C in the LUS Delivery Evaluation work, including by both of the FWS case studies130. The spatial analysis approach recognises that different constraints / primary land use issues have differing levels of sensitivity to different types of forest development (see figures above and below). A key innovation in the D&G pilot however was the use of stakeholder input to determine and agree these differing sensitivities which were subsequently inputted as weightings within the spatial analysis (see figure above).
This was highlighted in one of the evaluation interviews as a key strength of the D&G pilot, especially drawing on the knowledge and experience of local technical stakeholders to determine the relative importance of different constraints / primary land uses for different types of forest development, informing the weighting protocols used in the spatial analysis. Despite this strength, one evaluation interview highlighted how the assessment of primary land use could have been improved through the use of ecosystem service mapping data e.g. to identify the relative value of ecosystem services provided by primary land uses in different locations / with different biophysical properties and also to flag-up ‘hotspot’ areas where land parcels are providing multiple services. The Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere131 ecosystem services mapping project was identified in this regard Key primary land uses identified: the approaches described above identified a range of primary land use issues across the D&G region that could influence forest development. The strategic constraints (see above) are, in essence, all key primary land uses that can be mapped meaningfully at the regional scale e.g. the Merrick Core Wild Land area132, areas of deep peat (i.e. carbon rich soils important in ecological terms but also for climate change mitigation – see LUS Principle F also), areas
129 The Right Tree in the Right Place: Planning for Forestry and Woodlands (FCS, 2010): http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcfc129.pdf/$file/fcfc129.pdf [accessed 31/12/14] 130 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 05/01/15] 131 Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere pages: http://www.gsabiosphere.org.uk/ [accessed 08/01/15] 132 Map of wild land areas in Scotland (SNH, 2014) – the Merrick is wild land area No.1 on this map: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1323225.pdf [accessed 08/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 85 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments sensitive to surface water acidification or soil acidity, designated natural heritage sites (Ramsar, Natura 2000, SSSI etc), National Scenic Areas133, Landscape Character Areas (LCA) where openness and exposure are identified as key characteristics, prime agricultural land etc134. The inclusion of prime agricultural land supports the consideration of land ownership and land value issues as a key land use with readily quantifiable monetary value. Deep peat is highlighted in the D&G pilot as a particularly important primary land use issue as the region “…has approximately 5.4% of all UK peatlands over 1 metre in depth” (D&G Council, 2014 p.15). It is important to note that the mapped outputs within the D&G FWS only show primary land uses / constraints in an integrated manner – i.e. the outputs of the spatial analysis process described above in terms of land use categories for forest development (see figures above). The specific primary land use issues considered in the analysis and their implications as constraints to different types of forest development are, however, indicated on the ‘decision trees’ (see figures above), supporting transparency of process. Despite this it would arguably be useful for stakeholders and applicants to know where individual primary land use issues / constraints are located across the region and sub-regions as a useful albeit ‘broad-brush’ input to investment decision- making (e.g. land purchases) and forest planning. As a case in point, the two FWS case studies considered in the LUS Delivery Evaluation work both included maps of individual primary land uses135 D. Ecosystem Integration within the pilot framework: TO A DEGREE services Key ecosystem services considered: consideration of ecosystem services within the D&G Pilot is largely implicit, indeed the evaluation interviews highlighted how ecosystem services were not ‘common currency’ five years ago (i.e. when FWS- development commences). There is one specific reference to ecosystem services in relation to LUS Principle D though specific services are discussed implicitly in relation to the possible benefits that forest land use (and indeed other land uses – e.g. peatland) can provide. Over and above the provisioning services associated with timber production, there is implicit discussion of key regulating and cultural services, especially climate and flood regulation, water purification and various aspects of recreation and aesthetic value. The role of woodlands providing water related ecosystem services is the subject of ongoing research and policy-development, including within the Forestry Commission136, and there is arguably a strong case for regional and sub-regional FWS to consider how forest development can contribute to sustainable flood risk management (FRM)137 Tools and approaches adopted for understanding ecosystem function and ecosystem services: the sub-regional geographies adopted in the D&G pilot are mapped to ecosystem boundaries – either water catchments or areas of distinct landscape character as identified through Landscape Character Assessment (see
133 SNH map of National Scenic Areas (SNH, undated): http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B691407.pdf [accessed 08/01/15] 134 A comprehensive list of strategic constraints assessed in the D&G FWS spatial analysis can be found on page 58 of the FWS: http://www.dumgal.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=15086&p=0 [accessed 07/01/15] 135 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 05/01/15] 136 See for example the Forest Research led Tay catchment opportunity mapping pilot (Broadmeadow et al, 2013): http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Tay_OM_Report_June13.pdf/$file/Tay_OM_Report_June13.pdf [accessed 12/01/15] 137 For example both FWS case studies in the LUS Delivery Evaluation work used SEPA’s indicative flood risk data to identify areas where floodplain and riparian woodland could contribute to FRM objectives – see LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Appendices Chapter 4 (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451117.pdf [accessed 12/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 86 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments figure below). Delineating management areas on the basis of functional ecosystem boundaries is a key strength for the adoption of an ecosystems approach138 as key ecosystem processes (e.g. ecological connectivity, hydrological cycle function) can be better understood and modelled at the ecosystem scale139. In this regard, habitat connectivity (a key ecosystem process) is discussed specifically in the D&G pilot as a key objective for forest development (e.g. it is one of the main ‘generic’ issues for consideration in forest planning – see LUS Principle C above). As discussed in the LUS Delivery Evaluation work habitat network modelling has emerged in recent years from the field of landscape ecology as a useful technique for prioritising and planning habitat restoration and expansion projects140 – i.e. where the objective is to facilitate the movement of species at the landscape scale, supporting a range of other ecosystem processes and providing a strategy for climate change adaptation (see LUS Principle F assessment).
As discussed at the LUS Principle C assessment, one evaluation interview highlighted how ecosystem service mapping could have been a useful tool supporting the development of the D&G FWS (see above). Although this approach was not used in the D&G pilot, it may be the case that future revisions of the FWS use ecosystem services mapping – e.g. drawing on the dataset that has been developed as part of the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere project141. Although, flood regulation ecosystem services were not considered within the D&G pilot’s spatial analysis approach (see LUS Principle C assessment), one evaluation interview highlighted how there is a mechanism for FRM objectives to be considered in forest planning case work (e.g. SEPA’s FRM team have an opportunity to comment on specific woodland creation applications at the consultation stage) and, further, that the finer details of woodland related natural flood management (NFM) need to be considered at the
138 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) ecosystems approach principles: https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml [accessed 12/01/15] 139 Land use planning in urban areas – towards an ecosystems approach (Phillips, 2014): https://pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/peter-phillips%28068707b1-1dbf-426d-a89e- 74f37f8412da%29.html [accessed 12/01/15] 140 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 05/01/15] 141 Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere pages: http://www.gsabiosphere.org.uk/ [accessed 08/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 87 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments catchment scale Stakeholders engaged with an interest in ecosystems and ecosystem services: a number of stakeholders were engaged in this regard including SEPA, SNH, FCS, private sector representatives with an interest in productive land uses (farming and forestry), the public and local communities. The breadth if this engagement could arguably provide the scope to consider and balance a range of ecosystem function and ecosystem service issues, at both the regional and sub-regional scale (see LUS Principle I assessment also) E. Landscape Integration within the pilot framework: YES change Focus on land use balance and the wider impacts of forest development supporting landscape sensitive forest planning and design: the D&G pilot’s specific sub-regional approach has the potential to support landscape sensitive forest planning and design at a range of scales. In particular, the schedule of local issues collated for each sub- region (see LUS Principle A assessment) can help to ensure that proposals (and dialogue between stakeholders including the applicant and FCS Conservancy staff) consider issues outwith the site boundary – e.g. what are the important local assets that contribute to landscape character, how might changes in land use balance impact landscape etc. This type of approach is very much aligned to the placemaking agenda142 which recognises how notions of ‘place’ are particularly relevant at more local / human scales and how good development and design should account for local issues by thinking ‘beyond the red line’ of a development proposal to ensure that development is integrated with its surrounding landscape and context. The placemaking agenda and its constituent approaches were highlighted in the LUS Delivery Evaluation work as key methods / approaches for delivering LUS Principle E (and others) particularly in an urban context but also in more rural contexts too – e.g. placemaking approaches were evidenced within the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere case study143. Whilst the D&G pilot considers strategic landscape issues (e.g. designated landscapes – see below and LUS Principle C assessment), there is also specific recognition, in line with the European Landscape Convention144 (ELC), that all landscapes matter. This ties in very much with the D&G pilot’s placemaking approach e.g. recognition that “the landscape around where people live can be as important to residents as nationally designated landscapes” (D&G Council, 2014 p.20). In this manner, the local issues collated for each of the sub-regions (see above and the LUS Principle A assessment ) can factor in issues of local significance (e.g. places and views that are valued by local communities) that would potentially be lost in an exclusively strategic, spatial analysis led approach Use of specific tools supporting consideration of landscape and place in forest planning: as discussed at the LUS Principle D assessment (see above), the D&G pilot’s sub-regional management area geographies were mapped to ecosystem boundaries including district areas of landscape character as defined by Landscape Character Assessment145 (LCA) and Landscape Character Types (LCT). The use of LCAs in this regard can help to ensure that forest development protects and enhances landscape by identifying the special characteristics of landscapes that should be maintained i.e. within the schedules of local issues identified for each sub-region e.g. “… the [Rhins and Machairs] peninsula landscapes are characterised by improved pastures divided
142 See for example Delivering Better Places in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2010): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/336587/0110158.pdf [accessed 12/01/15] 143 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 05/01/15] 144 Council of Europe European Landscape Convention (ELC) pages: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Landscape/default_en.asp [accessed 05/01/15 145 SNH Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) pages: http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands- nature/looking-after-landscapes/lca/ [accessed 12/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 88 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments into medium-scale fields with occasional thickets of gorse or wind-sculpted shrubs and trees” (D&G Council, 2014 p.72). A similar approach was adopted by both of the FWS case studies considered in the LUS Delivery Evaluation work146. Furthermore, at the strategic (regional) scale, landscape / LUS Principle E type issues were considered by integrating national level landscape designations with the spatial analysis of constraints e.g. National Scenic Areas147 (see LUS Principle C assessment above) F. Climate Integration within the pilot framework: YES change Consideration of climate change issues is central to the D&G FWS: the LUS and the Scottish Forestry Strategy148 (SFS) are identified as a key part of the national level policy context for the D&G FWS. Both the LUS and the SFS have a distinct focus on climate change and it is therefore unsurprising that climate change has been incorporated as a key theme within the D&G FWS. Crucially, this includes consideration of both mitigation and adaptation (see below). Climate change issues are considered at regional and sub-regional scales within the D&G pilot – e.g. habitat network creation is one of the generic issues (regional), areas of deep peat are assessed as strategic constraints within the spatial analysis (regional) and specific areas of deep peat have sometimes been identified as management issues within the sub-regional analysis – e.g. one of the identified main issues within the Cree / Bladnoch sub-region is “significant areas of deep peat under existing forests and within unforested moorlands” (D&G Council, 2014 p.75) Support for climate change mitigation and adaptation: the D&G FWS considers a range of climate change impacts and possible adaptation responses although the focus is primarily on impacts on the forestry sector (and possible adaptations) as opposed to how the forestry sector could support adaptation within other sectors. For example, although the sustainable FRM services of woodland are considered implicitly (see LUS Principle D assessment above), flood risk data has not been incorporated within the spatial analysis at all – e.g. to identify where and how forest development could support adaptation to the flooding related impacts of climate change. Conversely, there is consideration of how effective forest planning can support adaptation within the natural environment ‘sector’149 – e.g. developing woodland habitat networks to facilitate landscape scale wildlife movements in response to habitat range shift. Examples of key forest sector climate change impacts identified in the D&G FWS include “…invasive non-native species, new diseases and pests, windthrow, fire and flooding” (D&G Council, 2014 p.37). Mitigation is addressed extensively in relation to forest biomass but also in terms of deep peat / carbon rich soils. In particular the primacy of deep peats over forest development in terms of climate change mitigation objectives (and ecological importance) is recognised specifically (see LUS Principle C assessment) G. Vacant and Integration within the pilot framework: TO A DEGREE derelict land Basic consideration of Vacant and Derelict Land (VDL) issues: the D&G FWS includes specific mention of VDL using the National Planning Framework for Scotland 2150
146 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 05/01/15] 147 SNH map of National Scenic Areas (SNH, undated): http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B691407.pdf [accessed 08/01/15] 148 Scottish Forestry Strategy (Scottish Executive, 2006): http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/fcfc101.pdf/$FILE/fcfc101.pdf [accessed 07/01/15 149 Noting that the natural environment is one of five ‘sectors’ considered within the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (Defra, 2012): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69487/pb13698-climate- risk-assessment.pdf [accessed 12/01/15] 150 Please note that NPF2 (Scottish Government, 2009) has now been superseded by NPF3: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/278232/0083591.pdf [accessed 12/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 89 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments (NPF2) as a key policy hook – “It [NPF2] also makes reference to development of woodlands […] bringing vacant and derelict land into beneficial use…” (D&G Council, 2014 p.10). Within the woodlands and the environment theme of the D&G FWS there is a list of the type of VDL sites that could be suitable for forestry based restoration within the D&G region e.g. open cast and minerals sites, sand and gravel workings, former MoD sites etc. In essence, this provides a very basic / high level assessment of the VDL resource within D&G though there is no assessment of the condition or quality of VDL sites (e.g. in terms of clean-up costs, suitable remediation techniques etc). Furthermore, there is no specific consideration of VDL / LUS Principle G type issues within the sub-regional aspects of the D&G FWS – i.e. this issue is included as generic / regional scale policy only H. Outdoor Integration within the pilot framework: YES recreation Consideration of outdoor recreation and access is central to the FWS: the FWS and access identifies a very broad range of land / forestry based outdoor recreation opportunities and associated public access issues centred around: 1) activity and adventure tourism pursuits (e.g. mountain biking and horse riding); 2) eco-tourism (e.g. wildlife watching, country sports, iconic woodlands); and 3) cultural heritage tourism (e.g. historic land uses). Furthermore, the FWS makes explicit links between outdoor recreation / access to green and openspace (including forestry) and health and wellbeing – e.g. “woodlands and high quality greenspaces are good for people’s mental health and physical health and general wellbeing – the presence of accessible woodlands and greenspace locally can encourage physical activity which in turn has proven benefits for health and wellbeing” (D&G Council, 2014 p.40). The region’s core paths (including paths within and adjacent to forestry) have been identified as key assets for outdoor recreation and sustainable access provision. LUS Principle H type issues have also been considered within the specific sub-regional aspects of the D&G FWS – e.g. key tourism and recreation destinations are named as ‘local assets’ within the schedules of local issues developed for each sub-region (see LUS Principle A assessment). In this manner, the local issue schedules provides a mechanism to help ensure that local assets are protected and enhanced through forest development, including in relation to landscape and place values (see LUS Principle E assessment) Stakeholder involvement in the identification of outdoor recreation and access issues: as discussed below at the LUS Principle I assessment, a highly structured approach to stakeholder engagement was adopted in the D&G FWS, including the engagement of stakeholders with an interest in or remit for outdoor recreation, access and health related issues e.g. FCS, SNH, NHS and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCofS). Feedback from evaluation interviews highlights how although Community Councils weren’t engaged specifically, the public and local communities were invited to comment at the statutory consultation stage (i.e. on the draft FWS and its accompanying Environmental Report) I. Involving Integration within the pilot framework: YES people Structured approach to partnership working and stakeholder engagement: the D&G FWS adopted a highly structured approach to partnership working and stakeholder engagement. The approach had specific regional and sub-regional aspects though the consideration of local issues was seen as a key strength as explained below. The development of the FWS was managed through informal151 partnership working and the interaction of two separate groups: 1) a working group (WG) comprising key stakeholders (D&G Council, FCS, SNH, SEPA etc) that provided a ‘sounding-board’ to D&G Council (as the ‘owners’ of the FWS) and was ultimately responsible for drafting the strategy; and 2) a stakeholder group (SG) with a wider membership (e.g. private sector forestry interests, fisheries interests, NGOs, NHS, MCofS, John Muir Trust etc)
151 In the sense that partnership working was not formalised at all – e.g. through a partnership agreement, Terms of Reference (ToR) document etc
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 90 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments that inputted to FWS-development at key stages. The WG was managed in such a way that primary stakeholder contacts represented on the WG were able to draw on wider input from colleagues within their respective organisations, keeping the direct membership of the WG small and manageable whilst ensuring access to additional expertise as required – e.g. the SEPA contact on the WG was able to draw on colleagues with expertise in ecology, hydrology, operations and Water Framework Directive (WFD) / River Basin Management Planning152 (RBMP) issues. Key objectives of stakeholder engagement were to: 1) agree the generic / strategic issues for consideration in the FWS; 2) agree weighting protocols for the spatial analysis (see LUS Principle C assessment above); and 3) scope local issues for consideration in sub- regional planning – i.e. this is the key area where stakeholder engagement contributed to sub-regional forest planning. The stakeholder engagement process involved iteration between the WG and SG through several key stages. In summary, several ‘big ticket’ issues were identified for each of the sub-regional management areas through workshops with the SG supported by specific inputs (lists of generic issues, maps and outputs from the spatial analysis). Two public drop-in days were also held to provide an opportunity for affected communities to input to the local issues process. The issues identified were then analysed and refined by D&G Council before circulation to the wider WG for comment / agreement and integration with the draft FWS. The draft FWS was also subject to statutory consultation alongside an SEA Environmental Report, providing a further opportunity for the stakeholders, communities and publics to comment Key benefits of the D&G stakeholder engagement approach: the evaluation interviews highlighted a number of key benefits and strengths of the stakeholder engagement approach described above: 1) of crucial importance to this evaluation, the use of sub-regional issues was seen as a much more relevant approach to engaging community level stakeholders (including farmers) in FWS-development – the scale and diversity of the region was seen as a key issue in this regard e.g. why would a farmer or private resident in Eskdale be interested in forest development issues around Stranraer in the Rhins and Machairs sub-region; 2) the management of the WG was undertaken in such a way that all stakeholders represented on the WG had the opportunity to contribute – getting the WG up and running early-on was considered to be a deciding factor in this regard; and 3) the wider SG structure provided useful feedback on draft issues – there were lots of useful comments, discussions and points raised at the SG workshops J. Land use and Integration within the pilot framework: YES the daily Supporting sustainable land based enterprise: a central theme of the D&G FWS is living link supporting land based enterprise through ‘woodlands and sustainable growth’ including commercial forestry, local timber and forest products as sustainable construction materials, forest skills development and the development of forestry related tourism. All these objectives have the potential to support an increase in land based employment and training, thereby helping to create a very tangible link between the land use and daily living. These economic objectives are captured variously within the sub-regional aspects of the FWS – e.g. priorities for woodland management and woodland expansion Supporting environmental education: the FWS includes provision for educational initiatives linked to local woodlands e.g. to help raise awareness of forests and the role of the forestry within the landscape, the local economy etc
152 SEPA river basin planning pages for the Solway Area Advisory Group: http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning/area_advisory_groups/solway.aspx [accessed 08/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 91 Final Report March 2015
Appendix 8: Flow Country pilot Evaluation Question No.2 detailed analysis
The table below documents the analysis undertaken for the Flow Country pilot to answer Evaluation Question No.2 – do the pilot projects have the potential to guide local level decision-making to help meet the overall objectives of the LUS? The analysis considers the degree to which the LUS Principles have been integrated with the Flow Country pilot’s policies and frameworks, using evaluation criteria as the basis for assessment. The evaluation criteria are listed above in Appendix 3. Further details of the Evaluation Question No.2 approach can be found at section 2.3 and in detail at paragraphs 3.3 – 3.13 in the LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report153.
153 LUS Delivery Evaluation Project Main Report (Phillips et al, 2014): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451192.pdf [accessed 05/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 92 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments A. Multiple Integration within the pilot framework: TO A DEGREE benefits Background information on the Flow Country pilot in relation to LUS Principle A / multiple benefits: the geographical scope of the Flows pilot, as considered in this evaluation, is focussed on the central area of Caithness and Sutherland (see section 2.5 and Figure 3 in the main report). The focus of land management within this area is very much on woodland removal to support the restoration of high conservation value peatland habitats – i.e. the blanket bog associated with the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands Special Area of Conservation (SAC) / Special Protection Area (SPA)154. In essence, this part of Caithness and Sutherland is the most important area for peatland habitat and the bird populations that this habitat supports (including dunlin and golden plover that have been used as focal species in the habitat network modelling – see LUS Principle C assessment below). This is in contrast to the wider Caithness and Sutherland peatland management area155 where, whilst high quality peatland habitat is still a significant land use (see figure above), there is greater scope for more diverse / integrated patterns of land use including sensitive forestry development on areas of in-bye land and in the straths (the wide river valleys dividing the upland areas). As such, opportunities for land use to deliver multiple benefits within the Flows pilot area are constrained by the need to restore significant areas of peatland primary land use Woodland removal can constrain the delivery of multiple benefits: the evaluation interviews highlighted how revenue options (i.e. benefits) from clear-fell land in the Flows (i.e. after woodland has been removed to restore peatland – see above) can be limited. It can also be argued that current land values under forestry are higher than peatland and that the removal of woodland would cause a loss of asset for land owners. Despite this, the economics of forestry in the Flows is marginal (due to the generally poor growing conditions) and the total economic value (TEV) of restored peatland may well be higher than that of poor quality commercial forestry, given the range of ecosystem services provided by peatland habitats e.g. climate regulation, pollution regulation, education etc156. That said, the evaluation interviews did highlight some scope for clear-fell land to deliver revenue / multiple benefits including renewable energy development, the obvious carbon storage value157, sporting revenue (deer and grouse) and one-off payments through the Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP) for peatland restoration (noting that this is a one-
154 SNH Natura sites and Habitats and Birds Directives pages: http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands- nature/protected-areas/international-designations/natura-sites/ [accessed 13/01/15] 155 The Peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland Management Strategy 2005 – 2015 (SNH, 2005): http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/scottish/nhighland/PeatlandsStrategy.pdf [accessed 13/01/15] 156 UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) Chapter 5 – Mountains, Moorlands and Heaths (Van der Wal et al, 2011): http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx [accessed 13/01/15] 157 Though it was acknowledged that this benefit is less relevant in revenue terms (i.e. from a private land owner perspective) in the absence of suitable carbon markets / payment for ecosystem service (PES) schemes
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 93 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments off payment to cover the cost of an agreed management intervention and will not provide revenue). The evaluation interviews also identified issues concerning access constraints and economies of scale. In particular it was felt that the impact of woodland removal policy in the Flows (see LUS Principle C assessment) could be such that forestry is reduced to tiny woodland blocks in the middle of restored peatland. As a result, the balance of costs benefits for forestry (especially in relation to access / forest road maintainance costs) may tip the wrong way, acting to further reduce the forestry sector’s presence within the Flows and the potential multiple benefits associated with more integrated patterns of land use Mechanisms to secure the delivery of multiple benefits from the Flows: as outlined above there is some limited scope for the delivery of multiple benefits from integrated patterns of forest-peatland land use within the Flows. The key mechanisms for the delivery of these multiple benefits are the Caithness and Sutherland peatland management strategy158 (which is currently being revised) and the Highland and the Islands Regional Forestry Forum which has a remit to promote well designed mixed woodlands159. The peatland management strategy is, in essence, an integrated land use strategy for the region and sets out opportunities for land use to deliver multiple benefits, including forestry (see above). The evaluation interviews highlighted how the revised strategy may include broad spatial recommendations for peatland and forestry, including possible areas for integration B. Regulation Integration within the pilot framework: YES Streamlining the woodland creation application process: as outlined in the WEAG report160 a key purpose of sub-regional forest planning is to “provide clarity to applicants [and to] help reduce delays and uncertainty in the application process…” (WEAG, 2012p.9). As such, all three of the pilots are arguably doing something new to streamline / support the delivery of an existing regulatory regime – i.e. regulation by the FCS of new woodland creation. This is ‘Route No.3’ for integrating LUS Principle B – see paragraphs 3.10 – 3.13 in Phillips et al (2014) Streamlining by consensus and a more detailed understanding of sub-regional issues: as will all three pilots, the Flows’ main approach to streamlining is to build consensus around the key issues, constraints and opportunities for forest development at the sub-regional scale. In the case of the Flows, this is very much focussed on developing consensus around the significance of local conditions for peatland restoration (e.g. peat depth, topography, presence of pool systems etc – see LUS Principle C assessment) so that plans for woodland removal can be optimised to support multiple objectives, especially peatland restoration (a public benefit) and timber production (a private benefit). This is achieved through the use of a strategic landscape scale conservation planning tool in conjunction with local and national guidance (see LUS Principle C assessment), site level planning and stakeholder engagement (see LUS Principle I assessment) to reach agreement on an optimised land use strategy for private forest holdings, given the objectives listed above. As with all three pilots, the rationale with the Flows is that by building up a more detailed picture of sub-regional forest design and planning issues, applicants will be better able to reflect local level issues within their proposals, thereby expediting the application process. The key factors supporting consideration of LUS Principle B issues in the Flows are arguably the availability of local spatial guidance and the extensive
158 The Peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland Management Strategy 2005 – 2015 (SNH, 2005): http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/scottish/nhighland/PeatlandsStrategy.pdf [accessed 13/01/15] 159 Highland and the Islands Regional Forestry Forum Pages: http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/supporting/communication-consultation/regional-forestry-forums/highland- and-islands [accessed 13/01/15] 160 Report of the Woodland Expansion Advisory Group to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Environment, Richard Lochhead MSP (WEAG, 2012): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/WEAGFinalReport.pdf [accessed 05/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 94 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments use of stakeholder engagement, practical site meetings with stakeholders etc to build consensus around the local forest planning issues C. Primary use Integration within the pilot framework: YES Key primary land uses identified: the Flows pilot pays particular attention to three key primary land uses: 1) commercial forestry – the extant plantations of Sitka spruce and lodgepole pine; 2) peatland habitats of high nature conservation value associated with the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SAC / SPA161 – these areas are determined through the edge effect maps and local level FCS guidance (see below); and 3) peatland habitats that are important in terms of their carbon storage and more general ecological value – these areas are determined through the application of national level FCS guidance (see below) Approaches for assessing and determining key areas of primary land use: the Flows pilot has used a number of approaches to determine the three key types of primary land use identified above. One approach is highly specific to the Flows and two draw on relevant national level guidance as key inputs. These approaches are explained further below, starting with the Flows specific case. Identifying areas of high nature conservation value peatland habitat primary land use: as explained above, peatland habitats in the Flows are important primary land uses in terms of their high nature conservation value. This is due to the importance of the habitats themselves (the SAC aspect) and also the bird populations that these habitats support (the SPA aspect)162. The importance of the Flow Country peatland habitats in this regard has been recognised for many years due to their global significance as “one of the world’s most extensive, contiguous areas of blanket bog, a landscape dominated by deep peat and vegetation cover rich in peat-forming Sphagnum mosses…” (Wilson et al, 2013 p.2). As far back as the late 1970s concern was expressed over the impact of commercial forestry in the Flows on peatland habitat (drying out) and the bird populations these habitats support (as a result of the edge effect from plantation forestry). This concern prompted a detailed study (including breeding bird surveys between 2003 and 2006) to quantify the impact of the forest edge effect on two species of bird (dunlin and golden plover) as a proxy for wider edge effect impacts on the high nature conservation value peatland habitats in the Flows. This study formed the basis of a
161 SNH Natura sites and Habitats and Birds Directives pages: http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands- nature/protected-areas/international-designations/natura-sites/ [accessed 13/01/15] 162 Ibid
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 95 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments peer reviewed journal article published in 2013163 that subsequently provided the basis for FCS164 and SNH165 forest planning guidance in the Flows that supports the determination of areas of primary land use associated with high nature conservation value peatland habitat. In essence, the Wilson et al (2013) study combined habitat and bird survey (dunlin and golden plover) to understand the relationship between habitat characteristics and the presence (or not) of birds. The habitat characteristics assessed included biophysical factors (slope, elevation, vegetation cover, presence of pool systems) and, crucially, distance to forest edge. The study identified a clear link between the presence of birds and distance to forest edge – “the forest edge effect work provides us with a clear basis for saying that existing forestry means that, without modification, any second rotation planting up to the existing forest edge will create a likely significant effect on golden plover and dunlin breeding densities” (SNH, 2014 p.1) – and also the various biophysical factors determining habitat quality for birds. Slope and presence of pool systems were particularly important in this regard. The results of the study enabled the development of an ‘occupancy model’ that predicts the likely presence of birds based on the habitat characteristics assessed (slope, distance to forest edge etc – see above). Crucially the model also predicts the benefit of pulling back the forest edge from adjacent high nature conservation value peatland habitat as a function of increased probability of occupancy by the focal bird species considered (see figure above). This provides broad spatial guidance for determining areas of high nature conservation value peatland habitat primary land use – i.e. the area of land that would not be restocked at the second rotation166. As shown on the figure above, the predicted benefit of woodland removal (and therefore the potential area of high nature conservation value peatland habitat primary land use) is variable as the model considers a range of habitat characteristics – e.g. steeply sloped areas with no pool systems will be of lower conservation importance and therefore less important in primary land use terms. The broad spatial guidance provided by the edge effects maps (see figure above) has been distilled into local FCS guidance167, in line with national guidance and it provides the basis for initial discussions between FCS Conservancy staff and the applicant in relation to woodland removal / restocking at the second rotation. The most sensitive forest edges (red cells on the figure above) are those where the FCS guidance stipulates that “forest edges should be removed and not replanted for up to 800m from the edge of the SPA” (FCS, 2013). These sensitive conditions may occur, for example, where the adjacent peatland habitat is flat and contains pool systems. There is an acknowledgement that the edge effects maps are strategic and subject to the data limitations and assumptions of any numerical modelling process (see below). In this regard, the evaluation interviews highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement and site
163 Modelling edge effects of mature forest plantations on peatland waders informs landscape scale conservation (Wilson et al, 2013): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12173/abstract [accessed 14/01/15] 164 Guidance to Forest Managers preparing Forest Plans within the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SAC / SPA (FCS, 2013) [not available online] 165 Guidance on Forest Edge Effects: Approach to Casework (SNH, 2014) [not available online] 166 It is important to note that the edge effect model predicts the benefits of woodland removal for bird populations on the adjacent SAC / SPA and not the area of land where woodland is removed – i.e. there is no basis for concluding that bird populations will occupy the clear-fell land. In effect, the area of high nature conservation value peatland habitat is the adjacent SAC / SPA – woodland removal supports the protection and enhancement of these sites by minimising the edge effect on birds and the hydrological impact of forestry on peatland ecology: Modelling edge effects of mature forest plantations on peatland waders informs landscape scale conservation (Wilson et al, 2013): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365- 2664.12173/abstract [accessed 14/01/15] 167 Guidance to Forest Managers preparing Forest Plans within the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SAC / SPA (FCS, 2013) [not available online]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 96 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments level assessment supporting the interpretation of the edge effects maps and local FCS guidance when identifying areas of peatland habitat primary land use on nature conservation grounds. In particular, there is an opportunity for local knowledge (e.g. from the applicant, NGOs, FCS Conservancy staff etc) to ‘ground truth’ the model – e.g. small scale topographical features not considered in the modelling may limit the conservation value of the habitat beyond what is indicated on the edge effects map (a benefit for the applicant). The evaluation interviews highlighted how the edge effect mapping approach could be used for forest planning (woodland removal) purposes elsewhere – i.e. where existing commercial forestry blocks are located within areas of peatland habitat supporting significant / important bird populations. Areas of peatland habitat primary land use that are important in terms of their carbon storage and more general ecological value are determined with reference to existing FCS guidance on forestry and peatland habitats168169. Under this guidance existing deep peats (>50cm depth) are protected from new woodland creation and afforested peat soils where the site is a priority for habitat restoration on ecological grounds (including carbon storage benefit) are not required to be restocked. Crucially this restocking policy can be applied to forestry planted on peat soils that are not of conservation / carbon interest in their own right but where adjacent peatland habitats are – ‘adjacency’ in this regard is considered to be up to 100m which is the maximum distance at which hydrological impacts of forestry on peatland habitats are assumed to take place (i.e. the drying effect of forestry on peatland habitats). Given this, the key difference between the edge effects mapping and the existing FCS peat guidance as methods for determining areas of peatland habitat primary land use is the woodland removal buffer distance – in the case of the former this could be anything up to 800m whereas the latter will only ever allow for a buffer of 100m170. The recent FCS supplementary guidance171 also includes provision for determining areas of commercial forestry primary land use in situations such as the Flow Country. In particular, the guidance allows for conventional restocking where the site would support sufficiently robust growth to compensate for carbon losses from soils (Yield Class 8 or above for Sitka spruce). Finally, the evaluation interviews also highlighted the importance of land ownership as a determinant of primary land use, particularly where the objectives of the land owner are uncontentious and likely to deliver public benefit – e.g. the RSPB’s management of the Forsinard reserve for nature conservation objectives. The National Forest Land Scheme172 (NFLS) was identified as a key mechanism supporting transfers of land ownership in this regard – e.g. the RSPB’s purchase of Forest Enterprise land adjacent to the Forsinard reserve Potential issues / stakeholder conflicts with the approach adopted: the evaluation interviews highlighted a number of problems / limitations with the approach adopted to identifying areas of primary land use in the Flows, dependent on the interviewee’s particular perspective. Natura 2000 sites173 are the primary driver behind the edge
168 Forests and Peatland Habitats Guideline Note (Forestry Commission, 2000): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/forests-and-peatland-habitats.pdf [accessed 14/01/15] 169 Forestry on Peatland Habitats – Supplementary guidance to support the FC Forest and Peatland Habitats Guideline Note 2000 (FCS, 2000): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/peatland-habitats- supplementary-guidance.pdf [accessed 14/01/15] 170 It must be noted however that buffer distances within the edge effects mapping and associated local level FCS guidance relate to protected bird populations (dunlin and golden plover) that the peatland habitat supports, as opposed to any direct impacts on the peatland habitat itself which are picked up in the national FCS guidance 100m buffer. 171 Ibid 172 FCS National Forest Land Scheme (NFLS) pages: http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/supporting/strategy-policy- guidance/communities/national-forest-land-scheme-nfls [accessed 14/01/15] 173 SNH Natura sites and Habitats and Birds Directives pages: http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands- nature/protected-areas/international-designations/natura-sites/ [accessed 13/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 97 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments effects mapping. This was identified as a potential issue with the approach (by NGOs) as the focus on Natura 2000 habitat characteristics may mean that undesignated peatland (that is still important in terms of its nature conservation value) scores lower in the modelling (see figure above) thereby weakening the case for wider woodland removal / peatland restoration. Conversely, it is acknowledged that the Natura 2000 habitat data underpinning the edge effect model has limitations and that the model may over / under estimate the nature conservation importance of peatland habitats as a primary land use. There is a concern from some stakeholders (NGOs) that the national level FCS forestry and peat guidance is not fit for purpose as a policy mechanism supporting the delivery of the Caithness and Sutherland peat management strategy174 – i.e. the policy isn’t strong enough on wider edge effect issues (e.g. the protected and unprotected bird populations that peatland habitats support) as the buffer for hydrological impacts only extends to 100m (see above). Whilst this is addressed in the Flows through the edge effect map / local FCS guidance, this mechanism isn’t in place elsewhere in Caithness in Sutherland or Scotland for that matter. Although the edge effects map is seen as a useful forest planning tool based on sound science and evidence, some evaluation interviewees (NGOs) would prefer a more prescriptive approach including clearer spatial policy on peatland and forestry – e.g. policy based on zoning and quantified assessment of land use balance. Finally, concern was expressed by some stakeholders (NGOs) over conflicts between national peat and forestry policy (i.e. the various peatland / forestry guidance and the national afforestation target). In particular, the option for ‘peatland edge woodland’ within the supplementary guidance on forestry and peatland habitats175 is seen as a poor fit with wider peat objectives (e.g. given the challenges controlling woodland regeneration on adjacent, better quality peatland habitats) in the interests of meeting the national afforestation target D. Ecosystem Integration within the pilot framework: YES services Ecosystem function / health is central to the Flow Country pilot’s approach: the whole approach to the Flows is premised on understanding and planning for the impact of commercial forestry on key aspects of peatland ecosystem function e.g. hydrology, ecological connectivity, biodiversity and species population integrity (especially key species of wader important for the SPA). Key aspects of the approach as they relate to ecosystem function / health issues are described at the LUS Principle C assessment above. Working towards an overall objectives of ecosystem health in this regard will undoubtedly support the provision of key peatland ecosystem services, especially climate regulation Approach to considering ecosystem services / ecosystem health issues: the approach is focussed on the use of a bespoke landscape scale conservation planning tool176 that supports an understanding land use / management impacts on ecosystem function – i.e. modelling the impacts of woodland removal on peatland habitats and the bird populations they support (see LUS Principle C assessment). This is facilitated through spatial outputs depicting the edge effects of existing commercial forestry on peatland birds and peatland hydrology. Woodland removal buffer distances have then been identified and set out in related forest planning guidance177. The breadth of
174 The Peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland Management Strategy 2005 – 2015 (SNH, 2005): http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/scottish/nhighland/PeatlandsStrategy.pdf [accessed 13/01/15] 175 Forestry on Peatland Habitats – Supplementary guidance to support the FC Forest and Peatland Habitats Guideline Note 2000 (FCS, 2000): http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/peatland-habitats- supplementary-guidance.pdf [accessed 14/01/15] 176 Modelling edge effects of mature forest plantations on peatland waders informs landscape scale conservation (Wilson et al, 2013): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12173/abstract [accessed 14/01/15] 177 Guidance to Forest Managers preparing Forest Plans within the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SAC / SPA (FCS, 2013) [not available online]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 98 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments stakeholders involved in the Flows pilot also ensures that a range of ecosystem services / ecosystem health issues are considered – e.g. SNH and RSPB (and FCS to a degree) have a particular focus on ecosystem health issues whereas FCS and private sector actors have a focus on provisioning services. Finally, the evaluation interviews highlighted how the revised Caithness and Sutherland peat management strategy is being developed from an ecosystems perspective, considering the current and potential value of ecosystems services provided by the region. This sort of approach would likely highlight the crucial value of peatland habitat providing a range of ecosystem services (especially climate regulation), highlighting the specific trade-offs between forest and peat land uses in the management area E. Landscape Integration within the pilot framework: UNKNOWN change There was no explicit or implicit consideration of landscape / LUS Principle E type issues within the documents reviewed or interviews undertaken as part of the Flow Country pilot evaluation. However, LUS Principle E is undoubtedly relevant to land use / management within the Flows as the removal of forests is a considerable landscape change and, as such, it is considered as part of the forest planning process and subject to assessment within Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) of deforestation related land use change178. Given this, the pilot framework clearly has the potential to consider landscape issues, as part of normal forest planning and development processes F. Climate Integration within the pilot framework: TO A DEGREE change Implicit consideration of LUS Principle F / climate change issues is extensive within the Flows pilot in relation to carbon rich soils and the mitigation agenda. The approach adopted is discussed in particular at the LUS Principle C assessment above. Consideration of climate change adaptation issues has not been evidenced within the documents reviewed or interviews undertaken as part of the Flow Country pilot evaluation G. Vacant and Integration within the pilot framework: N/A derelict land Vacant and Derelict Land (VDL) was not considered in the Flow Country pilot and is not considered to be relevant given the remote rural context H. Outdoor Integration within the pilot framework: UNKNOWN recreation There was no explicit or implicit consideration of outdoor recreation and access / LUS and access Principle H type issues within the documents reviewed or interviews undertaken as part of the Flow Country pilot evaluation. However, LUS Principle H is undoubtedly relevant to land use / management within the Flows and the pilot framework has the potential to consider recreation and access issues, as part of forest planning and development I. Involving Integration within the pilot framework: TO A DEGREE people Flow Country pilot’s approach to stakeholder involvement in land use decision- making: the Flows pilot (and related activities and initiatives) has employed a number of strategies to ensure stakeholder involvement in practical land use decision-making. In particular, stakeholder meetings have been used as an opportunity for the various statutory agencies (FCS, SNH) to get together with land owners / land agents and other stakeholders (e.g. RSPB) to present the research produced by the Flow Country Science Group (FCSG) and to discuss the evidence base for woodland removal (the edge effects work – see LUS Principle C assessment), scope out the practical implications of edge effects policy, go through maps and model outputs etc. Crucially this also involved site meetings to walk the forest edge, discuss the implications of edge effects policy and to provide an opportunity for local knowledge to ‘ground truth’ the edge effects model (e.g. identifying fine scale topographical features that may reduce the natural heritage conservation value of part of an SAC / SPA – see LUS
178 Forestry Commission Scotland EIA pages: http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/supporting/grants-and- regulations/environmental-impact-assessment [accessed 23/03/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 99 Final Report March 2015
LUS Principle Comments Principle C assessment). The evaluation interviews highlighted how the Peatland Partnership179 provides strategic thinking on land issues (including peat and forestry) across the wider Caithness and Sutherland region, through the Caithness and Sutherland peat management strategy180. Crucially the Partnership provides an opportunity for stakeholder input to land use though there is currently private sector representation on the Partnership. Partners that are represented include: FCS, SNH, RSPB, University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI), Highlands Council, Plantlife, Rivers Trusts, the local Deer Management Group (DMG) and various community interests. Finally, the Heritage Lottery Funded Flow to the Future181 project includes provision for an Advisory Officer post supporting private sector stakeholders through the woodland removal process, SRDP grant applications etc Strengths and weaknesses of the Flow Country pilot’s stakeholder engagement approach: a key weakness of the approach identified through the evaluation interviews is the public defensibility of the edge effects modelling work, the local FCS guidance and the decisions made by the FCS in accordance with this guidance. In particular, the Flows work is not embedded within a democratic Local Authority- process (as would be the case with a more standard Forestry and Woodland Strategy) and the public and wider stakeholders have not had a chance to comment on the policy that will inform land use decisions within the Flows (i.e. the edge effects mapping and associated local FCS guidance). Furthermore, although it is unclear exactly what influence the Caithness and Sutherland peat management strategy has on FCS regulated land use decisions within the Flows, the absence of private sector representation on the Peatland Partnership is arguably a key omission. On a positive note, the evaluation interviews highlighted how the Flows pilot has contributed to a better understanding of key management issues in the Flows across various stakeholder groups – e.g. the forestry sector has a clearer understanding of Natura 2000 issues whilst SNH now have more awareness of the practicalities and challenges of forestry in the Flows, especially in relation to timber transport J. Land use and Integration within the pilot framework: UNKNOWN the daily There was no explicit or implicit consideration of land use and daily lives / LUS Principle J living link type issues within the documents reviewed or interviews undertaken as part of the Flow Country pilot evaluation. However, LUS Principle J is undoubtedly relevant to land use / management within the Flows and the pilot framework has the potential to consider land use and daily life issues, as part of forest planning and development
179 Peatlands Partnership pages: http://www.caithness.org/peatlands_partnership/ [accessed 14/01/15] 180 The Peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland Management Strategy 2005 – 2015 (SNH, 2005): http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/scottish/nhighland/PeatlandsStrategy.pdf [accessed 13/01/15] 181 RSPB Flow to the Future pages: http://www.rspb.org.uk/joinandhelp/donations/campaigns/impact/flowcountry/future.aspx [accessed 14/01/15]
Evaluation of the LUS Forestry Focussed Collingwood Environmental Planning Sub-Regional Pilot Studies 100