Corporate report

Minutes: Forest Services board meeting 14 March 2023

Published 19 December 2023

Forest Services Board Minutes of the 18th Meeting held on Tuesday 14 March 2023 on 9am to 11.30am via MS Teams.

Present

Sir William Worsley (Chair) 
Hilary Allison (virtually)  
Edward Barker  
Anna Brown  
John Lockhart  
Ross Murray  
Derrick Osgood  
Steph Rhodes  
Richard Stanford 

Attendees

Samantha Malpass (for item 3.4)  
Ian Tubby (for items 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3)  
Alex Stewart – FC Boardroom Apprentice  
Andrew Stirling – Chief of Staff to Chair and CEO  

Apologies 

Sandy Storrie

Minutes 

Gemma Thomas 

1. Welcome and Apologies 

Sir William Worsley welcomed attendees to the meeting.  He welcomed Alex Stewart to his first Forest Services Board meeting.  He informed the Board that Alex was the Forestry Commission’s Boardroom Apprentice and would attend both Forest Services and Forestry England Board meetings across 2023.  Alex would be encouraged to ask questions and input to meetings, but it was highlighted that he would not have decision-making powers.   

Sir William gave the Board an update on recent activities across the Forestry Commission.   The Environment Bill statutory targets had been announced recently, including a target of 16.5% woodland cover in England by 2050.  That had been followed by the announcement of an increase in grants (CS and EWCO) capital rates at the Oxford Farming Conference, and then the launch of the EIP. 

Recent ministerial engagement had included a meeting with Minister Harrison and the Defra team at the end of January, focussed on issues around the progress towards getting WCC into ETS.   Continuing discussions were being held around presumption to plant, and on how to support the Secretary of State’s initiative to drive more data-drive accountability throughout Defra.   Updates from Forestry England included the approval by the NCF Project and Programme Boards of the proposal to evolve the Woodland Partnership into a blended offer allowing freehold acquisitions, and a notification that the MoU between Forestry England and HM Prison and Probation Service has been signed.  News from Forest Research included an update on the Research Strategy Reference Group, which included some useful discussions regarding encouraging support for a GB perspective in research commissioning.  The Parliamentary Reception had been rescheduled to 28 March, and the FCTU ‘Your Offer’ workshop had been arranged for 21 March. 

Sir William informed the Forest Services Board that he had been extended in role as Chair for a further term.  He noted that he intended to use his second term to work with external partners to ensure that the potential benefit of trees to society could best be realised. 

Ross Murray raised the issue of communications to and between Commissioners, and ensuing Commissioners were kept updated.  Sir William noted the Biodiversity Net Gain update, which had been included in the Board paper pack as a paper by correspondence.  John Lockhart noted he had been in contact with Andrew Canning-Trigg, and suggested to the Board that he connect Amanda Newsome and the National Forest team.  He noted he would report back to the Board either by correspondence or at a future meeting.    

2. Minutes of the last meeting and Declarations of Interest 

The minutes of the meeting on 13 December 2022 were agreed as a true record.     

All actions were noted as discharged or in train.   

Sir William Worsley raised that his membership of the ICF had not been reflected in the Declarations of Interest.  Gemma Thomas noted it would be updated.   

3. Key Management and Financial Information  

3.1 Directors’ Update  

Anna Brown introduced the FS Director’s Report.   She highlighted the recent success of the next round of applicants to the DWO programme.  She noted that the GB Biosecurity Strategy had been published, and was a good example of cross-border working.  The Board discussed private sector involvement in the DWO, and Steph Rhodes agreed that it would be desirable to make the programme’s reserve candidates available to the sector.  The Board discussed the perceived lack of understanding from local planning consultancies and developers around the interface between planning and regulations in relation to tree felling.  Increased engagement and education would be helpful.  The Board discussed the grey squirrel action plan which was under review following Ministerial feedback, and Anna Brown noted that the gene drive was likely to be five to ten years away.  The Board discussed the Ministerial Direction on consultation arrangements for forestry proposals which was being finalised, as was a Ministerial submission considering additional measures.   The Board discussed statutory plant health notice challenges, and the extent to which there was a reputational risk from sustained public criticism, and the different pieces of legislation involved in such cases. 

Anna Brown highlighted her paper on Prioritisation and Statutory Duties.   She noted that woodland creation was a high priority for government following the publication of mandatory targets for increasing tree cover in the Environment Act and in the Environment Improvement Plan.  Forest Services had recruited many new staff to increase capacity and capability to accelerate tree planting and would continue to do so in 2023/24.  Communications campaigns were increasing interest in woodland creation and the number of grant applications had been growing.  Felling license online approval was not meeting targets, however business processes had been changed and improvements were clear.  The Board discussed the Forestry Act, and the legislation which was several decades old.   Anna Brown noted the idea of developing a specialist team who would be solely focussed on this.   

Sir William asked the Board if they were content with the principles underpinning the prioritisation exercise, noting that activities in other areas of work would have to slow as a result.  The Board noted they were content.    

3.2 Risk, Issue and Opportunity Register, and FS Dashboard  

Anan Brown updated the Board on recent updates to the risk register, and discussed ongoing issues with FLO v2.   The Board discussed the grants management system, which had been raised at the ARAC, and the contractors who manage the system. The Board discussed the useful data provided on active management of woodland within the Dashboards.  The Board noted the number of draft woodland management plans submitted to the FC for review had recovered and was greater than that at the same point in the previous three years and the area of woodland within individual plans had also increased above the level of the preceding year.  The Board discussed the England Trees Action Plan, and noted that whilst some actions had not started, progress had been made on seven actions such as development of a woodland resilience action plan and a national deer management strategy and also updating of the grey squirrel action plan.  The Board discussed the need for a better understanding of woodland loss in relation to development, and noted the biodiversity net gain metric does provide greater clarity on habitat categories which may make this easier.  The Board also noted this was the first time forecasts for the NCF and FS were coming together, which was a positive step. 

3.3 Finance Update 

Derrick Osgood introduced his paper, updating the Board about the financial position at the end of AP10.  He noted the forecast for the Rural Development Programme which had been reduced earlier than expected.   He highlighted the reduction in forecast was down to staff costs, and noted that there was a possibility that some of the underspend would be transferred to Forestry England.   The actuals were half of the current budget, which indicated a lot of work still to be done before the end of the financial year.  An updated FC-wide SR21 submission for Year 2 and 3 had been completed and incorporated into the Defra position. Derrick Osgood noted that work had been taking place to align FS business planning activities FY23/24 with the indicative budget received from Defra.    The Board discussed the risk inherent in the sizeable gap between the actuals and the forecast, and the confidence gained by the reprioritisation exercise.    

3.4 FS Business Planning: 2023-24 Update – Key Decisions  

The Board welcomed Samantha Malpass to the meeting.     Sam noted that a full draft of the Business Plan was not yet ready for final Board approval because assumptions had been thoroughly tested and investigated, and there had been two rounds of scrutiny from every area of FS to ensure that rigour.   There would be a full draft Business Plan to be signed off by correspondence in week commencing 27 March which would be published in the first week in April for all staff to read. 

Sam highlighted the 5 key decisions for the Board to make. 

Decision: Does the Board agree the activities outlined in the paper should be our primary focus for FY2023/24? 

Board response: Agreed. 

Decision: Does the Board agree with the proposals detailed in the table in the paper? 

Board response: Agreed. 

Decision: Does the Board agree with the proposed assumptions (including level of realism applied) and overall level of overplanning (against total budget of £90.603M)?  

Board response: Agreed.  

Decision: Is the Board content that the more material application of realism this year (compared with last year), should result in more accurate forecasting whilst potentially exposing Forest Services to a higher level of risk (since better-than-anticipated recruitment performance will increase level of overplanning)? 

Board decision: Agreed.  

Decision: Does the Board agree to the level of pressure that this approach places on to FY24/25, and does it wish to provide a steer on ways to manage this in-year or does it wish to reduce further growth ambition in the FY23/24 Business Plan?  Pressure: an expectation of up to 665 FTE in FY24/25. Example management option: review and cease recruitment in FY 23/24 in anticipation of the next Spending Review. 

Board response: Agreed.  

The Board discussed delivering on statutory responsibilities, grant commitments and other ministerial expectations and also investing in staff.  The biggest risk to delivery was highlighted as securing talent from the marketplace, and also improving the capability of existing staff.  The Board supported the focus on learning and development.  The Board discussed the assumed uplift in the FY23/24 pay award, and the overplanning figure of 3%, noting the realism inherent in the table.  The Board discussed the early payment of legacy grants and working with HM Treasury to expedite that.  The division in work between the Defra Forestry Policy team and the FS Policy team was discussed. 

4. Items for Discussion  

4.1 Woodlands Into Management  

The Board welcomed Chris Watson and Ian Tubby to the meeting.   Chris Watson introduced his paper. Based on the Board’s previous aspiration to increase levels of woodland management from 59% to 75% by 2040, the Board was asked to decide whether or not a woodland management programme should be developed, and resources bid for as part of the SR2025 process; and to decide whether or not a woodland management target should be published and worked towards in parallel with mandatory woodland creation targets. 

The Board asked for clarification on what the £52 million over 10 years would be spent on.  Chris Watson noted the resource needed in terms of outreach and communications, in taking a different approach to woodland management.  There would be a need to target funding in a more regional way using innovation funding as well as CS funding, and possibly looking into LEADER funding.  The Board felt that the target of 75% by 2040 was right, and noted that having milestones on the way to that target (x% by 2025, y% by 2030) would be vital to ensure progress.  A challenge was raised as how confident could FS be in reaching the target, as progress had been static for some time. 

The Board asked about the proportion of landowners who were not interested or indifferent to better management.   Chris Watson noted that evidence was taken from the British Woodland Survey.  It identified the number of landowners who were sufficiently engaged with the process to respond to the British Woodland Survey and demonstrate they were undertaking woodland management, however over 60% of those who responded did not have a UKFS compliant Woodland Management Plan and were not engaging with the regulatory footprint of woodland management.  There was a percentage of respondents who were involved in managing their woodlands on a smaller scale, but FS had not been engaging with them as it was possible that they were felling below the required minimums for the felling licence application, or the grant schemes would not be appropriate to their scale of woodland. To differentiate those who were indifferent meant replying on circumstantial evidence, and to give a proportion would therefore be much harder to state.   It was noted that there would be an opportunity with the SFI woodland Standard to act as a pipeline, and to transform initial interest into long term management aimed at ecological condition, carbon sequestration and climate change adaptation, but that would be dependent on engaging third parties to do the tech transfer and the advisory.    The Board noted that well managed woods were much better for the environment than unmanaged woods, and noted that the biodiversity angle would be one worth pursuing.   Ian Tubby noted the felling licence threshold and the need to think about why licences were being issued and what risks were attempting to be mitigated, as overexploitation of woodland was not the biggest risk, it was the ongoing neglect combined with pests and diseases, and if the target was to be reached reform would have to be seriously considered.   The Board discussed the use of ELM as a vehicle for increased management, and asked Chris Watson and Ian Tubby to return to the Board with a follow-up paper, to ensure momentum.   

Action: 

Gemma Thomas to add an update on woodland management to the Forward Look for a future agenda. 

4.2 Emerging Forestry Species  

Ian Tubby introduced his paper.   He noted the intention to encourage more innovation from the sector and to encourage species diversification. There has been increasing interest in emerging forestry species, hybrids including eucalyptus and Paulownia, and a consistent approach to assessing emerging forestry species was needed, particularly in terms of their potential to become invasive as the climate changes.  There had been some pressure from Defra and Natural England to be very transparent around decision-making, and which species were planted.  Ian Tubby noted that the paper set out a decision-making methodology. The FC should retain the decision-making ability overall, but with input from NE, APHA and others. 

Currently, the decision-making process applies to EWCO, and Ian Tubby noted that the same process should be applied to other woodland creation projects that FS funds or regulates.  The Board noted the paper was very clear on the different risks associated with different environments, and asked whether setting a threshold was necessary.  Climate change meant that there was a high risk in ignoring emerging species.   The Board noted that Forest Research would be a really useful source of research and data, and looking abroad at evidence from Paulownia planting would be helpful.   

There was already a really good early warning system for horizon scanning in place.  Faster work needed to be done on carbon capture, and looking to evidence from countries further south would be instructive.  The Board discussed the economic viability of planting schemes.  The Board discussed Schedule 9 which lists species known to be very invasive.  Ian Tubby noted a proposed move towards planting, with due diligence and testing, on an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ basis.   Edward Barker raised concern from Defra, noting further reassurance would be sought around the evidence, and around decisions being reversible if required.  There needed to be a coherence between the framework and how it would be applied to other invasive and non-native species elsewhere in the system.  The Board discussed the pressures on biodiversity globally and in the UK, and noted that a precautionary approach would be an important way forward. Transparency in decision making would be critical, as would good governance when introducing novel species.   

4.3 Trees, Woods and Forests in the Environment Improvement Plan  

Ian Tubby updated the Board on the EIP which was felt to be positive for Forestry.  He noted it would be important to look at where FS resources were directed to ensure FS was best helping government to deliver the apex targets and sub targets within the plan.  The Board discussed pests and diseases, noting Ash Dieback as being of particular concern.   

5. Any Other Business 

Sir William Worsley thanked the Board members and closed the meeting. 

6. Date of Next Meeting 

The next scheduled Board meeting would be held on Thursday 25 May, via MS Teams.