Woodland Crofts and Family Forestry

Some years ago, I attended an interesting forestry workshop at which a local forester outlined the history of a particular woodland.

However, he then went on to confess - if that is the right word - that he had only managed to visit the wood once in the previous 18 months. Many in the audience were slightly taken aback by this, but to me it was not a surprise. You only have to ‘do the maths’ to realise that this is the current reality: fewer foresters than in the past, with ever more things to do, trying to cover ever larger areas of country.

Many would not see this as an issue, but rather evidence of enhanced efficiency. With improved information technology - computer-based mapping and sub-compartment databases, brought together in sophisticated GIS systems - the ‘forester’s footprints’ are perhaps less critical to forest management now than they once were.

Many would agree, however (not least foresters themselves), that it would be desirable to be able to spend more time in the woods, enhancing their local knowledge, which would improve management, leading to better benefits being delivered. But until someone finds a way to increase management input without adding to costs, is this just wishful thinking?

Maybe we are approaching the issue in the wrong way. Arguably, a model already exists where high levels of management input can be sustained without incurring crippling costs. We may not be all that familiar with it yet in Scotland, on account of the way our forest industry has developed in the past, but it is common the world over, where it is better known as ‘family forestry’. Various definitions for this can be found but the one I like particularly is, “small scale forestry, based on personal involvement and strong stewardship values”.

In considering how family forestry can deliver more for less, it is worth looking closer at one model of family forestry that we do have, which now enjoys the support of the Scottish Government - woodland crofts.

This support was the culmination of many years of discussion and patient promotion of the concept by its proponents, and followed a comprehensive ‘official’ examination of the issues. The study was delivered by a steering group tasked by the Scottish Government with examining “whether, and how, national forest estate (NFE) land might be used to create new crofts under crofting legislation”. Though the given focus was the NFE, the report actually addressed the general principles involved and as such its conclusions regarding the benefits of woodland crofts could be applied much more widely.

Ros and Rab Nash, woodland crofters at Cogle Wood Croft, Caithness ©WoodlandTrust/JohnMacPherson.

Though published several years ago, the steering group report still remains one of the best-argued cases for woodland crofts we have. Its strength lies in its hard-headed focus on public benefits: woodland crofts are worth having, because they can deliver more. These potential benefits were grouped under the usual economic, environmental and social headings. One in particular is worth quoting here in respect of my earlier remarks. Woodland crofts, the report considered, had the potential to: “Derive economic benefits from local intensive management of areas of forest that may be difficult to achieve with remote management on an extensive basis”.

Though economic benefits were highlighted in that statement, environmental and social ones could just as easily have been included too, as highlighted elsewhere in the report. The key point is the recognition that local intensive management can bring additional benefits, which may be difficult to achieve under conventional management models.

Why, then, might a resident woodland crofter be able to justify a greater intensity of management than a more remote forester? The answer lies in multiple benefits - to the crofter. The crofter derives not just a degree of income from his woodland, but it is also for him a place to live, grow food and fuel, and carry out other business activities. Not all of his work in the woods needs to be remunerated directly.

Enhanced knowledge of the woodland built up through time on site allows an attention to detail which maximises the opportunity to add value. Integrated with silviculture, other uses of the woodland such as grazing or tourism activities, add economic value to the woodland beyond simply its production of fibre. And the intimate knowledge of the forest held by the working woodland crofter, and his frequency on site, enable management for biodiversity of the highest level.

By making woodland management a part of people’s lives, rather than a waged activity only, we allow more to be done for less money, whether that is provided through timber income or grant support. You might call that ‘sweat silviculture’- analogous to the ‘sweat equity’ invested by self-builders in their homes.

If family forestry characterised by woodland crofts – and other emerging models such as woodlots - is unquestionably a good thing, then we surely need much more of it. In practice, a significant expansion of family forestry in Scotland would only require a small fraction of existing woodland - a fraction which will be more than offset by the planned increase in woodland area under Scottish Government targets. And one area where woodland area is rapidly increasing is the south of Scotland – but there’s a problem here.

It is at present only legally possible to create new crofts (including woodland crofts) in the Highlands and Islands. However, Scottish Ministers have the power to designate new areas for croft creation and have used this power in the past, though currently there is no policy to do so again. The legislation involved is very simple, so this ultimately comes down to a question of politics - so if you think woodland crofts would be a welcome diversification to the local forestry scene, you’ll need to give your MSP a call…

For further information visit www.woodlandcrofts.org.

Jamie McIntyre