Green Ethics

Institute of Chartered Foresters 7A St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA. Tel: 0131 225 2705 Fax: 0131 2206128

Woodland in the National Forest

Editor: Colin Mann BSc(For), MICFor Issue No.3/95

Photograph courtesy of the National Forest

ICF NEWS 3/95

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Sir,

Forestry review - restocking grants Ă? would like to address Mr E.H.M. Harris's contention that for a piece of woodland on which a previous planting grant has been paid, the restocking grant should be lower than that paid for new planting.

The higher grant payable for new planting over restocking does not simply reflect intrinsically higher establishment costs associated with the former, as restocking on a far more disturbed site obstructed by old stumps, vehicle ruts and discarded lop and top can be far more expensive than converting agricultural land.

What this double standard does reflect, is the shift in power from the owner to the Forestry Authority. At the outset of a proposed woodland operation the Forestry Authority is impotent with regard to enforcing the current expansionist UK forestry policy. The Forestry Authority can only prompt, advise and coax landowners into converting their land, chiefly through the payment of the higher new planting establishment grants.

However, once one has signed on the dotted line and the trees are in place, the landowner becomes trapped, having thus dedicated his land to woodland ad infinitum (or until developers or the Department of Transport show an interest in the land).

Mr Harris warns foresters not to become 'dependent upon permanent subsidies', and yet we and the people we represent are being asked to accept a permanent restriction on how we use our land. In essence, the farmer is making a short-term agreement to produce a certain product deemed desirable by our land use decision makers in return for a cash inducement; once the agreement expires both production and payment stop and the farmer is then free to renew the agreement or else switch to another form of land use. For the farmer, the monev lasts as long as the restriction, why should this be any different for the forester? We, as a

nation, can ill afford the gains made in the expansion of forest cover during the post-war period to switch back to agriculture, but if new woods are to be subsequently restocked at the end of the rotation, society cannot expect the landowner to pav for this national gain alone through the loss of freedom and consequent incursion of opportunity cost. Monies made at the end a rotation generally represent a relatively low yield on a very tong standing investment, and it is no 'reasonable assumption' that the eventual benefactors of this investment shall reinvest their money in a successive forestry enterprise; there is no such requirement upon investors to reinvest money made on the stock exchange or any other business pursuit (as many commercial woodlands most definitely are) immediately back into the business in which the money has been made.

The presentation by foresters of more needy causes for money is an intellectual denial of rights of the existing woodland owner. Foresters appear to be defending the movement of money from restocking, rather than highlighting separate and additional needs elsewhere. In this way, we are letting the government off the hook for underinvestment, while focusing criticism upon the practitioners for apparently making policy, instead of the true policy and budgetary masters.

Graham V Garrat BSc MSc Sir,

Green ethics I would like to thank Professor Miller for replying to my letter (ICF News 1/95) and welcome his suggestion of a wider debate on Clause 1 of the Code of Ethics. I do understand his concern over careful wording and the meaning of words such as 'sustainability' and 'ethics' but I would have to say I was somewhat disappointed by his reply.

What is more important sustainable forests or mischievous complaints?

Since Rio many forestry programmes and much donor funding has been predicated on, among other things, 'sustainability'. Many international bodies, bilateral aid organisations and NGOs have

included 'sustainability' in their mission statement. Some governments have incorporated the Rio declarations into their legislation. One would expect a professional forestry body in the West to set an example to the international forestry community. It is untenable for me to persuade foresters in the developing world to pursue sustainable practice while in the enlightened West we appear more concerned about 'mischievous complaints'. Can I encourage ICF to find a lawyer who can encapsulate the spirit of Rio and of sustainability in a manner that is both rigorous and unambiguous? Even if a lawyer cannot be found I am sure most of us would prefer a sustainable forestry clause at the possible risk of the odd complaint.

What is the ethical contribution of increasing knowledge?

I am afraid Professor Miller's comments on ethical definitions were somewhat lost on me. Whatever dictionary we use (and it appears to be the worst sort of ethnocentric jingoism to seemingly invalidate an American dictionary), he does not explain how increasing knowledge' contributes in any way to any ethical or moral standard.

Apparently we are supposed to equate 'ethics' with 'standards' and 'standards' with 'increasing knowledge'. If this is the case it could be argued that thermonuclear war and genocide in gas ovens is 'ethical' providing the perpetrators 'strive for increasing knowledge'!

To be included in a 'Code of Ethics' Clause 1 needs to include some sort of ethical contribution. I agree with T.C. Booth (ICF News 1/95) that, to the phrase 'increasing knowledge', at least, the phrase 'to the benefit of society' should be added. The term 'society', however, is not focused enough, an even better phrase might be 'to the mutual benefit of all the present and future stake — holders in society'.

There are dangers, at present, that ICF or one of its membership might receive a mischievous complaint on the basis that Clause 1 is not a valid ethic and that ICF tacitly supports nonsustainability!!

ă€

John Studley, Rural Development Forestry Specialist, Chengdu, China