Official Report 176KB pdf
We have received two papers, which have been circulated to members. The first submission deals with the logistics requirements of the Scottish forestry industry. Members should have had an opportunity to look over this paper, which was prepared for the committee in response to a request for further information that we made on 5 October. Do we feel that the paper meets the requirements that we wished to meet when we made our request?
The final paragraph of the paper says:
Mr David Henderson-Howatt, who is the chief conservator in the Forestry Commission, is here today and will be able to answer questions on this paper and on the next paper that we will discuss. Do members think that it would be appropriate to invite him to come forward at this point? Please come forward, David. Irene, please direct your question to him.
Mr Henderson-Howatt, can you indicate the time scale that you envisage the report will require, as it will impact on what we decide to do now?
Yes. As the paper says, the development department has commissioned the study, not the Forestry Commission. However, I am in close touch with officials in the department, who have assured me that it will be available early next year.
The outcome of the study?
No, the study into rail freight. Although it is a strategic review of rail freight generally, our main concern is to ensure that the transport of timber and forest products is properly considered within the wider study.
Am I right in saying that timber production in Scotland will peak at the beginning of the next century? That is not a surprise to anyone, given that the timber was planted some time ago. Do you not think that the study should have been undertaken some time ago? It strikes me that it will take quite a few years to put in place any recommendations that the study produces and, by that time, timber production will be well down the road.
It is important to realise that, for timber transport, rail freight is only one part of the story. Even with the best will in the world, the timber must be transported from the forest to the railhead, so an element of road transport will always be involved. The development department's study will examine rail freight generally and, in a sense, it is fortuitous for us that it has come at this time.
Would it be fair to say that there is increasing concern among local authorities that their budgets are not sufficient to strengthen bridges, for example, to cope with forestry traffic?
That is absolutely right. There is a financial problem. That is why, although the amount of money that is available is out of our hands, we are trying to ensure that what money there is is spent sensibly, on the proper priorities and in the right places.
Are you concerned about the proportion of timber that completes its journey by road? Ninety-five per cent is a very high proportion. Is that a consequence of the location of sawmills, of communication links or because other methods of transport have not been developed as much as you would like?
The past 20 years, during which I have worked at the Forestry Commission, have been very stop-start in terms of getting timber on the rail network. Apart from the problem I mentioned earlier, there are other serious problems that must be faced. An example is the sawmill at Aboyne, which might deliver to customers in the midlands of England. If that sawmill uses roads, it is relatively easy to schedule lorries so that they can deliver to customers in two or three places in the midlands and the south of England. If rail is used, they must get an entire rail shipment together, which will have to go to a depot in the midlands and then be redistributed to customers. That is another problem that must be addressed in these days of just-in-time distribution.
You touched on my principal concern when you said that all timber must at some stage be transported by road. The roads are inevitably small and unsuitable because they come through forests to railheads and so on. It strikes me that there is a freight facilities grant that could enable transport of timber by water and that there is a track access grant that assists in the transport of timber by rail. Either way, the timber will need to be transported by road at some stage. Is not the buck being passed when it comes to the roads question? Is there a reluctance to address what is becoming a serious problem in forestry transport—the ownership and unsuitability of small rural roads?
There is a long and complicated story about that, but I will give a brief version. Until a few years ago, money to deal with forest roads issues was ring-fenced in local authority budgets. When local government finance was reformed, more decision-making power in relation to how local government money was spent was delegated to local authorities. The principle is that it is for local authorities to determine their priorities for capital spending. I know that that does not answer your question fully, but that is the background to the position we are in today.
Some years ago, there was a fund for forest access grants. That helped local authorities maintain the roads structure in rural Scotland. That fund has disappeared all of a sudden. I understand that Forest Enterprise seriously intends to assist local authorities where there is an obvious problem with the recovery of mature timber. Do you have a view on that? The northern conservatory is looking at that more seriously than ever and it is more willing to continue dialogue with the local authorities to achieve the result.
That is right. That is in the context of joint working between the commission, the industry and local authorities. Everyone is trying to find pragmatic solutions and the sort of initiative in the north of Scotland to which you refer is an example of an attempt to identify the problems and to work together to find a sensible way forward.
I know that in certain areas—specifically Argyll—forest roads that belong to different groups have been used to transport wood through different forestry areas. There has been a coming together of the people involved. Has there been a strategic decision that forest roads should be shared?
That option obviously depends on the willingness of the owners along the route. It is another example of something that it is better to consider locally, rather than nationally. For example, the Argyll timber transport group now has a project officer in place. One of her tasks is to look specifically at places where such a scheme could be established, where the networks make sense and the owners along the way are prepared to allow it.
Are there any other questions about the transport paper? Please indulge us for a moment, Mr Henderson-Howatt, while we complete that part of our discussion.
I shall therefore take that opportunity and report back to you at our next meeting.
Will you stress the fact that we consider the matter to be a high priority?
Yes. I will make it clear to the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee that we have identified forestry as an area of priority.
Earlier in the year, we launched a consultation exercise on the Scottish forestry strategy and produced 5,000 copies of the consultation document. Copies were sent to all the community councils in Scotland, to local authorities and to industry organisations. Members of the public could pick up copies at the Highland show and at other agricultural shows.
Does anyone have any questions on the summary of responses?
Five thousand copies went out, but only 250 responses were received. Were you disappointed by that, David? The stack may be 2 ft high, but 250 is a relatively small number of responses to a consultation on a national issue such as forestry.
I was also involved in the work of the land reform policy group, which was in many ways much more politically controversial. Although there were more responses to the land reform consultation exercise, that response was not of significantly greater magnitude. It is in the nature of such things that many people who have an interest will not necessarily put pen to paper and write in about it. For example, many people know that their views have been represented through the organisations that they belong to, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Timber Growers Association, a community council or some other body. The fact that we have had only 250 responses belies the fact that many people have had their views put forward by organisations.
On a related point, 400 people came to your seminars during the consultation period. Were their views incorporated into the summary? There is always something limiting about asking set questions in a consultation paper. I know that there is nothing to prevent people from debating the issues more widely, but they tend to focus on the questions that have been put before them. Seminars would have given more opportunity for wide-ranging discussion. Were the views fed into the consultation?
Yes. All the regional seminars were noted and their reports were fed into the analysis of responses. We seconded a lady who works in our research agency to go through all the responses and reports of the seminars and to prepare this summary.
The draft document will be issued to those who responded in the first place before it comes before the Parliament. Was no thought given to involving this committee at an earlier stage—perhaps in drawing up the consultation paper or devising the questions—rather than at the end of the process?
It was certainly not our intention that the draft strategy should be issued to those people who responded to the consultation exercise before it came before the committee. What I had in mind—subject to the committee's wishes—was that those things should happen at more or less the same time. This consultation paper was prepared earlier this year—it was published at the end of March, before devolution. We are available to engage with the committee in whatever way it wishes to take the process forward.
You observed that this consultation did not lead to the same political contention as the land reform consultation did; we would not find that surprising. From the seminars and responses, what issue gave rise to the greatest divergence of views? Everyone accepts the principles—at issue is what comes first. What was at the root of the differences between the interested bodies?
To put it crudely, one sensed a divergence between those who envisaged a green future for forestry, and those who were more concerned with its industrial and employment-creation aspects. However, I would not want to present those concerns as mutually exclusive. An important part of the strategy will be mutual reinforcement, so that, as far as possible, we can have the best of both worlds.
So the differences have their origins in where people are coming from, rather than in where they want this strategy to take us.
Are there any further questions?
I have more of an observation than a question. You said that indicative forestry strategies have been generally welcomed, and I am sure that that is true. However, I want to stress the need for those strategies to work in tandem with agri-environmental schemes. One problem that I have encountered when dealing with hill farmers in the Eskdalemuir area is that people find that the value of their land falls by around half when it is zoned outside a forestry area, because they are not able to sell it on to forestry developers. There is obviously a need for schemes to reward farmers for keeping land in agricultural use rather than transferring it to forestry use.
The issue that Dr Murray has raised relates particularly to what we call local forestry frameworks, which we are piloting in two areas in Dumfries and Galloway and which operate at a more detailed level than the indicative forestry strategy. They were introduced following a case in which someone applied for woodland grants scheme money to plant a farm. No one denied that it was a good application, but there was a strong feeling locally that there was enough forestry in the area—70 per cent of it was already afforested—and that people did not want any more. To prevent that from happening in the future and to give people clearer guidance on whether it is worth developing applications, we decided to prepare the local forestry frameworks that are now being piloted. Dr Murray is right to point out the problems that arise when we are dealing with that detail and people see lines being drawn on the map around their own property.
Until 1994, an enormous amount of timber was carried from the west coast by coastal shipping, under the tariff rebate scheme. That seemed a good idea, as it kept an enormous number of heavy lorries off the roads. If the tariff rebate scheme was reintroduced, I believe that the same thing would happen again. Would you be keen on that?
The tariff rebate scheme has a long history. I think that those who were involved in moving timber under it would be the first to say that its operation was not ideal. As you said, when it was withdrawn in 1994, there was a reduction in the amount of timber that was moved by sea. Since then, the amount has crept up. I am not sure whether the tariff rebate subsidy is the right way to go; what we want—particularly with the Argyll timber transport group—is to look for opportunities for promoting more sea transport.
I thank Mr Henderson-Howatt for his contribution to the meeting. As for the consultation exercise, it may now be appropriate for us to await the strategy report that he mentioned and consider it when it becomes available. Do members agree?