A WOODLAND POTENTIAL STUDY PHASE 1 REPORT Desk Top Study November 2014

1" "

GROWING MORE TREES FOR GREATER MANCHESTER Introduction

The case for more trees in and around our towns and cities is strong and compelling. Trees deliver a whole range of benefits which make them an essential part of our cities’ future. They are enjoyed and cherished by local communities and make our neighbourhoods much more pleasant places to live when they are a key feature of an area. A city of trees is a healthier city. They are an excellent store for the carbon emissions which we are over producing in our modern lives, playing a key role in the battle against climate change and greatly improve air quality. Trees provide an important introduction for our children to the natural world, which is becoming ever more remote with city dwelling. Woods also create a habitat for wildlife which remains in decline. The arguments therefore, for more woodland are clear. Nevertheless there are many who might say that so are the obstacles. Land, undoubtedly, is a scarce and expensive resource. Its ownership is, typically, very diverse and as landowners look to maximise value, tree planting does not, on first look, do this. There is also a strong argument that people need houses and we don’t have enough of them. On the other hand we also need these in a pleasant and healthy environment and trees help to deliver both of these. From our initial survey of the opportunities out there it is clear that there are many which would help us to greatly increase the woodland cover in Greater Manchester, whilst working alongside the other land requirements. If, in fact, landowners, local authorities and the public generally work together there is no reason why all cannot achieve their desired aims from the land. If we use the creative ingenuity for which Manchester is renowned, and has in abundance, there really is no reason why solutions cannot be found to produce all round benefits. We want as a minimum to double the tree cover in Greater Manchester within a generation and to plant a tree for every man woman and child that lives here. We also want to ensure access to all of our woodland and that it is appreciated and maintained by the local communities. The aim of this report is not to provide all of the answers but, rather, to draw the issues to the attention of everyone involved and to start the discussion. We genuinely believe that there exists a strong feeling of goodwill towards woodland amongst all communities and we need to harness this, along with some creative thinking, to secure a much greener, more resilient and pleasant environment. Michael Oglesby CBE DL

1" "

Growing More Trees For Greater Manchester - Phase 1 Report

Executive Summary Background Greater Manchester is the UK’s second largest conurbation. It is home to over two and a half million people, and like all great city regions it is mainly dominated by the built environment of roads and buildings. However, amidst the tarmac and concrete of our towns and cities there is a network of trees, woodlands, open water and green space which adds huge value to the local economy and to the health and well-being of the people who live here. Nearly two thirds of Greater Manchester is classed broadly as “green infrastructure”, while only 7% of it is woodland. It is estimated that the conurbation has around 12 million trees. These natural assets play a crucial role in the area’s success and vitality - but more trees and woodland are needed if Greater Manchester is to fulfill its ambitions and become a sustainable world class city region.

Land"Cover"in"Greater"Manchester"

Red Rose Forest has been asked by The Oglesby Trust to carry out a scoping study into the potential to increase the extent of Greater Manchester’s woodlands. The Trust recognises the economic, environmental and social benefits of woodlands and wants to explore new ways to increase these benefits in the future. The report has set out to establish: • The benefits of expanding woodlands in Greater Manchester • What woodland we already have, what land is available for new planting and where we need woodlands to maximize benefits in the future • The potential barriers to creating new woodland and better managing existing woodlands - and how these can be overcome Why more woodland? Our report identifies a number of key benefits which more and better managed woodland would bring to Greater Manchester. The benefits extend to people, wildlife, the local economy and our environment. Creating new areas of woodland will: • Improve the health and wellbeing of the local population • Lock up carbon and help GM reach its carbon reduction targets 2" "

"

• • • •

Build resilience - helping Greater Manchester adapt to climate change Reduce flooding and improve water quality Provide opportunities for education, skills development and volunteering Boost Greater Manchester’s image - attracting and retaining visitors, investors and key staff • Enhance biodiversity - by creating new habitats and wildlife corridors • Create jobs - in timber and woodland industries

Assessing woodland creation potential. The study involved a detailed mapping exercise, using readily-available existing datasets, to identify three different categories of land in relation to woodland potential. Woodland potential

Land area

Absolute constraints: areas where woodland cannot be created Partial constraints: areas where woodland could be planted, but where there may be some constraints No constraints: Land where there are no significant physical constraints to woodland planting

% of GM land

72,165 ha

57%

16,212 ha

12% 31%

39,334 ha

Where do we need woodlands? The needs for the benefits listed above can vary spatially. We used readily-available datasets and a simple weighting system to create a provisional map of where woodlands are most needed, but we anticipate that this mapping will be modified through work with stakeholders. Broadly: 3" "

•

•

•

Need for Recreation, Health, Education and Work and Skills and Volunteering benefits are highest in densely-populated areas where there is little opportunity for woodland creation, so better management of existing woodlands in these areas is a priority. Need for Flood Management and Water Quality benefits are greatest in river valleys and upland areas even though there are likely also to be benefits downstream in higher density urban areas. Need for Wildlife benefits are greatest close to existing woodlands, as many species can only colonise over small distances, and larger areas of woodland can support more viable populations.

However, it will be important to look beyond the administrative boundaries of Greater Manchester, as there will be may opportunities for woodland creation in the wider region that will deliver benefits for Greater Manchester itself.

Woodland Management There is already around 9,000ha of woodland in Greater Manchester, but probably only 20% is in active management and therefore 7,200ha is not in active management. Not all these remaining woodlands could realistically be brought into management, but if we set a target of 30% of these, 2,100 additional hectares of existing woodland will be brought into management to deliver a range of benefits for communities." ! 4" "

Recommendations This initial desktop study carried out by Red Rose Forest has identified significant potential for new woodland creation in Greater Manchester. Nearly a third of the conurbation (31%)%) has been identified as land which has no physical constraints in terms of new woodland planting. If this potential for new woodland creation could be realised, it would deliver major environmental, economic and social benefits for Greater Manchester. The benefits have the potential to be widespread; filtering through to residents, visitors, businesses and our public and voluntary sectors. The report recommends the following actions be taken to maximise the benefits of new woodland creation: • • • • • •

• •

Identify interested parties who we can bring together to take this issue forward Review the opportunities, and identify and action 'low hanging fruit' that can be moved forward quickly. Carry out a ‘ground truthing’ exercise to confirm the results of the initial desktop study Establish the extent of public access at existing woodland and natural environment sites Undertake a research exercise to establish major landowners ‘on the ground’ and to identify and understand any barriers to woodland creation Identify and/or develop key mechanisms which can be used to overcome barriers to woodland creation. These could include the government’s land management grant scheme (Countryside Stewardship), carbon reduction objectives, Payment for Ecosystem Services, agroforestry, planning gain, etc. These mechanisms should then be tested and refined Develop and deliver an influencing campaign targeted at key GM and national stakeholders to secure support and funding for new woodland creation projects in Greater Manchester

5" "

"

6" "

"

Contents 1. Introduction and purpose of the report

9

2. The Case for Woodlands

11

2.1 Carbon Storage and Sequestration

13

2.2 Recreation and Health

14

2.3 Education and Heritage

15

2.4 Water quality and quantity

16

2.5 Wildlife Habitats and Corridors

17

2.6 Work, skills and volunteering

18

2.7 Biomass/Woodfuel

19

2.8 Design and Management for multiple benefits

20

3. Review of previous studies

22

3.1 Red Rose Forest Potential Study – 2000

23

3.2 Forestry Commission Uplift Calculator – 2012

24

3.3 Pennine Prospects Woodland Opportunities Mapping

28

4. Assessing woodland creation potential 4.1 The existing tree and woodland resource

31

4.2 Constraints to woodland creation

36

4.3 Constraints Mapping

37

4.4 Constraints to Woodland Management

38

5. Where do we need woodlands?

41

5.1 Carbon Storage and Sequestration

42

5.2 Recreation and Health

42

5.3 Education and Heritage

43

5.4 Water quality and quantity

43

5.5 Wildlife

44

5.6 Work, skills and volunteering

44

5.7 Biomass/Woodfuel

45

5.8 Provisional Needs Mapping

45 7"

"

30

"

6. Motivations, barriers and incentives to create and manage

50

woodlands 6.1 Landowners

51

6.2 Public attitudes

52

6.3 Green Belt

54

6.4 Land Ownership

55

6.5 Major Developments

56

6.6 Grant regimes and other assistance

57

7. Summary of findings and recommendations

59

7.1 Summary of findings

60

7.2 Recommendations

61

Appendices

63

Appendix 1. Needs mapping Raw Data

64

Appendix 2. Countryside Stewardship Woodland Creation

68

Appendix 3. Case studies

Available

Appendix 4. Greater Manchester Woodland Opportunities

from Red Rose Forest

8" "

"

9" "

"

1. Introduction and purpose of the report This Phase 1 report is a desktop study that was commissioned by The Oglesby Trust from Red Rose Forest, Greater Manchester’s Community Forest, as the first step in a proposed larger ongoing woodland potential study for Greater Manchester. The Red Rose Forest Partnership, along with Pennine Edge Forest, has been the primary instigators and facilitators of the creation of new woodlands in Greater Manchester over the last 20 years. The Oglesby Trust commissioned this desktop study to start the process of exploring the potential for further large scale woodland creation in Greater Manchester as the Trust recognises the potential multiple environmental, social and economic benefits that this could bring to the city region. The purpose of the proposed larger woodland potential study for Greater Manchester that is likely to follow this desk top study will be to secure the support of key decision makers and funders, and the general public, for a quantum leap in woodland creation and management in Greater Manchester. To secure this support the overall study will need to map the whole of Greater Manchester to identify potential areas for new planting and to identify barriers to planting, as well as potential mechanisms to overcome these barriers." As a starting point for this work this desktop study aims to carry out a review of previous research and to identify and collate available data sets and to produce the following outputs; • • •

A comprehensive GIS map based resource, remotely identifying planting opportunities. A hard copy report outlining the desk top study’s methodology and its key outputs. Suggested next steps in terms of ground-truthing of the desktop study; identifying barriers/constraints to woodland planting and management; and suggested financial and other mechanisms to overcome these.

In addition to this examples of different woodland creation projects from Greater Manchester are included in Appendix 4.

10" "

"

11" "

"

2.

The Case for Woodlands

Well managed woodlands provide a wide range of significant benefits – for Greater Manchester, the most important are: • •

• •

• • •

The storage of carbon in trees and woodland soils, and the annual sequestration or capture of carbon by trees. The use of woodlands for recreation, and the health benefits of physical exercise in woodlands, capture of air pollution and reduction of noise nuisance. Woodlands as a setting for education for children and adults, and as the focus for understanding and enjoying heritage. Woodland’s ability to improve water quality by trapping and retaining pollution and to manage water and helping flood management by slowing down the movement of water through the landscape. Woodlands as important wildlife habitats and corridors. Opportunities for work, learning skills and volunteering. The biomass and woodfuel that can be sustainably harvested from woodlands as a source of low-carbon energy.

This section sets out to summarise the key benefits that well-managed woodland can provide for Greater Manchester. One way of considering the benefits from woodlands is to think in terms of the now widely-used terminology of ‘green infrastructure functions’ or ‘ecosystem services’ that they provide. ‘Ecosystem Services’ are the benefits people obtain from the natural environment. For example, woodlands have the capacity to slow the flow of water and so potentially reduce flooding. If that reduction of flooding is considered a benefit to people, perhaps because a new housing development is at risk, then it can be regarded as an ecosystem service. The importance of Ecosystem Services is recognised nationally through the White Paper The Natural Choice and UK National Ecosystems Assessment, and internationally through the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. As well as having an increased amount of woodland, it is important that existing and new woodlands are managed well to maximise the benefits they provide, otherwise they can become liabilities rather than important assets.

12" "

"

2.1 Carbon Storage and Sequestration •

• •

Carbon storage and sequestration is a key issue for Greater Manchester and hence it is identified as a Key Ecosystem Service by the GM Natural Capital Group1 . Woodlands can help GM reach its CO2 target. Depending on their management, woodlands can store up to 800t CO2 (equivalent) per hectare2. The carbon storage hierarchy3 sets out the most carbon-friendly uses of wood Building Materials

Durable goods

Outdoor uses

Woodfuel

•

• •

Every cubic metre of wood used as a substitute for other building materials reduces CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by an average of 1.1 t CO2. If this is added to the 0.9 t of CO2 stored in wood, each cubic metre of wood saves a total of 2 t CO2. In Greater Manchester, carbon in woodland timber and soils accounts for an estimated 15% of total carbon storage1 There is potential for further enhancing the carbon storage in new woodlands, through better soil preparation, incorporating leaf sweepings and other organic matter.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1

"Greater"Manchester"Ecosystem"Services"Pinch"Points"Study,!1 "April"2014"E"GMCA"

2

"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/1412347"

"

3

st

"http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFDE8JPJ2Q"

13" "

"

2.2 Recreation and Health • •

•

•

•

‘Public recreation and Venue for green travel routes’ is identified as a Key Ecosystem Service by the GM Natural Capital Group.4 Woodlands for access – woodlands provide very important venues for a wide range of types of physical access. Examples include; dog walking, jogging, mountain biking and paint balling. There are critical size requirements and infrastructure requirements for different activities. Woodlands also have much greater public access carrying capacity than open sites and as such maximise the recreational use of land in urban areas such as Greater Manchester with limited land but high population densities. There is evidence that urban trees remove large amounts of air pollution and improve urban air quality. Columbia University researchers found asthma rates among children aged four and five was significantly lower in areas with more street trees. The UK has one of the world’s highest rates of childhood asthma, with about 15 per cent of children affected and a higher prevalence in lower socioeconomic groups in urban areas.5 Woodlands, if sufficiently dense and deep, can physically screen noise, but perhaps more importantly reduce the perceived levels of nuisance noise6 by offering visual screening from the sources of noise and by providing other more attractive sounds, like leaves rustling or birdsong, that mask the nuisance noise. Woodlands and trees play a particularly important role in helping urban areas adapt to climate change particularly by helping to lessen the Urban Heat Island Effect thus making urban areas more resilient to extreme heat events.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 4

"Greater"Manchester"Ecosystem"Services"Pinch"Points"Study,!1 "April"2014"E"GMCA"

5

"https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/mediafile/100083924/UrbanEairEqualityEreportEv4EsingleEpages.pdf" "http://joa.isaEarbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=1931&Type=2"

6

st

14" "

"

2.3 Education and Heritage •

•

•

•

Woodlands provide excellent places for outdoor learning 7 across all aspects of the curriculum, including history, geography and science, improving literacy and maths, learning about risk and consequence, building confidence, increasing communication skills and encouraging creativity. There is growing interest in ‘Forest Schools’,8 one particular way of delivering outdoor education. It is a movement that originated in Scandinavia and its ethos is based on a holistic approach that promotes learning through experience, in a woodland setting. Through practical hands-on sessions, participants experience and learn about risk and consequence. It nurtures self-esteem, confidence, motivation and a positive attitude to learning, and it provides an opportunity to build a positive relationship with the natural world. (Red Rose Forest coordinates the Greater Manchester Forest School Cluster Group and also provides training and skills development opportunities for people delivering Outdoor Education). As landscapes which have a lifespan of decades or centuries, woodlands provide a sense of time and place for communities, providing clues and insight into our past landscape. They help to tell the story about how and where our neighbourhoods formed. Traditional woodland trades, such as willow weaving, wood-turning and charcoal making are enjoying renewed interest and can provide opportunities for people to discover more about their heritage.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 7 8

"http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFDE85RHHY" "http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFDE5Z3JVZ"

"

15" "

"

2.4 Water Quality and Flood Management • •

•

•

Water Quality improvement and Flood Management are both identified as Key Ecosystem Services by the GM Natural Capital Group9. The importance of woodlands in upland parts of catchments and on floodplains is increasingly being recognised. The Forestry Commission publication Woodland for Water: Woodland measures for meeting Water Framework Directive objectives 10 provides strong evidence to support new proposals to expand woodland in appropriate locations for soil and water benefits. The main drivers for woodland expansion include sustainable flood management, water bodies remaining at risk of failing good water status despite improvements in agricultural land practices, and the need to mitigate the effects of climate change. The benefits for water quality and quantity are potentially greatest for the planting of riparian and floodplain woodland, which can help to reduce diffuse pollution, protect river morphology, moderate stream temperature and aid flood risk management, as well as meet Biodiversity Action Plan targets for the restoration and expansion of wet woodland. Targeted woodland buffers along mid-slope or downslope field edges, or on infiltration basins also appear effective for slowing down run-off and intercepting sediment and nutrients but the evidence base is limited. Wider woodland planting in the landscape is known to reduce potential pollutant inputs compared to agriculture in the form of fertiliser and pesticide loadings, as well as protect the soil from regular disturbance and so reduce sediment delivery to watercourses11,12.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 9

st

"Greater"Manchester"Ecosystem"Services"Pinch"Points"Study,!1 "April"2014"E"GMCA" http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FRMG004_Woodland4Water.pdf/$FILE/FRMG004_Woodland4Water.pdf" 11 "Taken"from"‘Woodland"for"Water:"Woodland"measures"for"meeting"Water"Framework"Directive"objectives" 2011" 12 "http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FRMG004_Woodland4Water.pdf/$FILE/FRMG004_Woodland4Water.pdf" 10

16" "

"

2.5 Wildlife Habitats and Corridors • •

•

•

Provision of Wildlife Habitats and Corridors is identified as a Key Ecosystem Service by the GM Natural Capital Group13. Woodlands provide a home for some of Britain’s best-loved wildlife, including robins, badgers, red squirrels, and deer. They are arguably the richest type of wildlife habitat 14, and through a wide range of microhabitats support a huge diversity of species of plants, animals and fungi. A network of well-managed woodlands can allow species to move and colonise, especially for species undergoing range change as a result of climate change15. However, many woodland-dependent species are declining at alarming rates16. Over 40% of species within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan are associated with woodlands, and the following types of woodlands are UK Priority Habitats: o o o o o o o o o

Traditional Orchards Wood-Pasture & Parkland Upland Oakwood Lowland Beech and Yew Woodland Upland Mixed Ashwoods Wet Woodland Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland Upland Birchwoods Native Pine Woodlands

In Greater Manchester, the most important of these are Traditional Orchards, Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland, Wet Woodland and Upland Oakwood. •

•

For Greater Manchester, Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) are in place for Native Woodlands and for these woodland species: o Native Black Poplar o Bats o Willow Tit Unmanaged woodlands are generally shadier and have less structure than managed woods. This can lead to a reduction of certain invertebrates and woodland bird species. Unwanted or undesirable species can also increase without suitable management controls.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 13

st

"Greater"Manchester"Ecosystem"Services"Pinch"Points"Study,!1 "April"2014"E"GMCA 14 "http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/learn/woodsEandEwildlife/woodlandEhabitats/exploringEwoodlandE habitats/" 15 "http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forestresearch.nsf/ByUnique/INFDE69PF6U" 16 "http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/projects/details.aspx?id=344293" "

17" "

"

2.6 Work, skills and volunteering • •

•

•

• •

• •

•

‘Delivering an integrated approach to employment and skills’ is a key aim of the Greater Manchester Strategy.17 Creating and managing woodlands can provide training opportunities in transferable skills such as machinery operation, work planning and community engagement. Woodlands and trees have an important role to play in helping to create a high quality environment that will help secure investment and attract and retain key staff. Greater Manchester’s quality of environment needs to be enhanced if it is to be able to compete successfully on a global stage as its competitors are investing heavily in their local environment. Woodlands also provide a place and space for local communities to get involved in, or take the lead on projects, improving community cohesion and developing a sense of citizenship. Volunteers can help greatly with the management and maintenance of woodlands whilst at the same time gaining valuable skills and experience. Friends Groups are keen to look at ways to help improve maintenance and access to woodlands. Groups help with fundraising and events and increase community participation in woodland events. Positive community involvement helps to foster a sense of respect and responsibility to woodlands, helping to reduce anti-social behaviour. With the right engagement techniques woods and green space can provide the best environment to successfully work with groups that are often regarded as “hard to reach”. The voluntary sector, including social enterprises, could have an important role to play in managing existing woodland and creating new woodland whilst at the same time developing work, training and volunteering opportunities as well as stimulating the use of woodland/timber produce.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 17

"http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/gm_strategy_stronger_together_summary3.pdf"

"

18" "

"

2.7 Biomass/Woodfuel • •

The Greater Manchester Energy Plan18 highlights the need for renewables to play an increasing part in the sub-region’s energy mix. Woodfuel can be a sustainable source of energy, with the woodlands required to provide the energy needs of various building set out below. Type!of!Building!

How!much! woodfuel! required?!

How!much!woodland!would! you!need!to!provide!that! woodfuel!on!an!ongoing! basis?! "

Footnote!

6!t/yr! 20

"

"

8!ha!

Community! Building!

50!t/yr! 21

"

"

25!ha!

Secondary! School!

150!t/yr! 22

"

""

•

•

35,000!ha! 200,000!t/yr!

As the graphic shows, substantial areas of woodland are needed to produce enough woodfuel for large installations, but woodfuel can play a significant role in domestic energy. We also have a historic legacy of under-managed woods which could produce large quantities of logfuel as a ’one-off’ if brought into active management, over and above the annual yields used in the graphic calculations. There is considerable potential for community involvement in creating and managing woods to provide household woodfuel.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 18

"http://media.ontheplatform.org.uk/sites/default/files/connected_executive_summary.pdf" "http://climatex.org/articles/climateEchangeEinfo/woodEfuelEoxfordshire/" 20 "Based"on"information"from:"The"Barn,"Lancashire"Wildlife"Trust"HQ,"(Bamber"Bridge)" 21 "http://climatex.org/articles/climateEchangeEinfo/woodEfuelEoxfordshire/" 22 "http://www.peelenergy.co.uk/brep/ourEproposals" 19

19" "

"

1!ha!

3?bed! house!

20MW! Power! Station!

19

"

2.8

Design and Management for multiple benefits

The table below outlines in more detail the wide range of green infrastructure (GI) functions that woodlands can provide more broadly. New and existing woodlands will provide a wide range of these inter-related Ecosystem Services or Green Infrastructure benefits for GM that, even though we may look at them individually (as above), in reality they interact and multiple benefits are generated and sustained. These benefits can be maximised through intelligent design and management. A good example would be an urban fringe woodland that brings colour and wildlife to an area and shields houses from a busy transport route. It could also be providing a base for learning through a Forest School, be a place for exercise (jogging/dog walking), cooling in times of extreme heat and a retaining/slowing down area for water in times of high rainfall. It would also provide a source of timber for woodfuel or higher end products and a place of work/volunteering and community engagement and pride whilst to many woods are also places to unwind and get some relief from the day to day pressures of modern life; after all it is said that the calming effects of trees and woodlands acts faster than Prozac.

20" "

" GI Function

Comments

Food production

Large scale woodlands typically offer relatively little food return, though it is claimed that agroforestry techniques can substantially increase food productivity.

Biomass production

Woodlands offer substantial amounts of renewable biomass production. There are many barriers to managing woodlands for biomass/firewood but there is potential for many sites to be more productive.

Water storage/ Flow reduction

Wet woodlands are known to be able to store significant amounts of water and so attenuate flows. Awareness of this function is relatively low amongst woodland managers. Many woods could be improved to enhance their contribution to flow reduction and water storage.

Carbon storage

Woodlands can store significant amounts of carbon in timber and soils, and sequester additional carbon every year. Depending on the wood, increasing productivity and use of wood products can improve the carbon storage effect a woodland can have. In less intensively managed woods, retaining slow growing and longer lived species may be more suitable to retaining forest carbon.

Habitat for wildlife /Corridor for wildlife Evaporative cooling/ Shading from sun

Woodlands, especially those with well-managed edge environments, provide important corridors for a wide range of wildlife, especially those undergoing range change.

Noise absorption

Woodland can physically screen noise, and also reduce the perceived levels of noise through visual screening and masking with more pleasant sounds. Managing woodlands specifically for noise control is unusual - maintaining a well-stocked and dense shrub layer as well as a full canopy, requires active management. Tree roots can play an important role in bioremediation.

Pollutant removal from soil/water Soil stabilization Trapping air pollutants

Aesthetic

Cultural asset

Recreation public/private

While the lack of woodlands in built-up areas makes their impact relatively low, urban woodlands can have an important effect as they continue to have evaporative cooling in drought conditions where other green covers has limited effect. Managing woodlands and ensuring that windblow or canopy gaps are filled with the next generation of trees will help to maintain evaporative effects.

Trees and woodlands play an important part in stabilizing soils, especially on slopes and river banks. Managing woodlands for soil and bank stabilization may require a balance to be struck between canopy cover/shade and shrub/field layer species. Trees are increasingly recognized as having importance for trapping air pollution, especially of particulates linked to circulatory and lung disease. Maintaining canopy cover and tree health will result in more particulates being trapped. Certain species may also be better at trapping pollutants than others – management can shift species mixes and woodland structure to favour greater capture. Woodlands are widely seen as positive elements of the landscape. Well looked after woodlands, particularly in the urban environment, can ensure any negative perceptions of woodland (dark, dangerous, full of rubbish etc) are reduced and they are seen more of a local asset rather than a liability. People feel strongly about their local woodlands, and woodland creation can have positive impacts on social benefits like community cohesion. Encouraging community activities as well as getting local people to participate in caring for the woods near them, can reap many benefits – better woodland management, less anti-social behaviour etc Woodlands are popular places for recreation and can have a greater ‘carrying capacity’ than other landscape types. Managed woodlands are often more open, inviting and have the access infrastructure that can support both informal and more organised recreation.

21" "

"

22" "

"

3. Review of previous studies There have been a number of previous studies or projects which have looked at the potential for woodland creation over all or parts of Greater Manchester • • •

The Red Rose Forest Potential Study (2000) suggested an increase in woodland cover of over 300% was possible. The Forestry Commission Uplift Calculator (2012) produces an uplift estimate of only 40%. Pennine Prospects Woodland Opportunities Mapping (ongoing) assessed that an increase in cover of 117% was achievable.

These widely-varying figures reflect the different baseline data used, the level of optimism adopted and the degree to which changes in incentives were considered, and highlight the need for a more rigorous approach to identifying woodland creation potential to achieve benefits for Greater Manchester.

3.1 Red Rose Forest Potential Study – 2000 This study was produced by Eamonn Wall & Co for Red Rose Forest in 2000. The study was a combination of desk research, landowner interviews and workshops. The desk research used MapInfo GIS to map constraints and identify possible areas for woodland planting. The area of study was the 6 districts that make up the Red Rose Forest area (Bury, Bolton, Manchester, Salford, Trafford and Wigan). Using recent survey data gathered for the Woodland Resource Survey, they estimated that 4.9% of the Red Rose Forest area was wooded and that a further 47.1% contained unconstrained (to planting) land. Land manager interviews were conducted for 371 sites covering 10,031ha. Owners were asked about the likelihood, scale and timing of planting in order to give an indication of realistic targets. Owners were also asked about the benefits of trees, obstacles to planting and suggestions for overcoming obstacles. The participants in the workshops identified and ranked the benefits of trees and obstacles to planting as well as suggesting mechanisms for overcoming obstacles and desirable planting targets. The owner interviews suggested an achievable planting target of approximately 175ha per year over the next five years. The workshop sessions suggested a desirable planting target of 17.8% cover, which is very close to the (Red Rose Forest Plan) published target of 17.1%.

23" "

"

The study recommendations from 2000 included: • •

•

•

Adoption of a coordinated approach to the use of development as a driver for planting in the RRF. Additional financial support - an extra £3,000/ha would be required to stimulate the extra 100ha per year of planting necessary to achieve the present target. This additional funding might be most effective if distributed as a challenge fund. A levy on development approval might also be worth considering. Monies from such a diverse range of donors would be administered most efficiently through a centrally operated Red Rose supplement scheme. Land purchase may have a role to play in helping to meet targets. It addresses many of the obstacles raised during the study and may be able to deliver woods of more appropriate scale and higher quality than can be achieved through the private sector alone. An annual budget of £3.25 million could deliver most of the planting required to meet the existing target.

Post Study Outcomes Ownership attitudes to planting suggested that 45% of sites might have ’moderate’ or ‘strong’ potential for planting. This assessment of attitude did not materialise into schemes after follow up work offering advice and guidance was done. Other owner opinions on planting timescales and scale of planting suggested a potential bank of planting sites but again, schemes and owner interest did not meet these expectations in subsequent years. From the workshops, the main obstacles identified to planting were land availability, politics (mainly planning issues), maintenance and capital costs. The study was a good attempt to quantify the level of potential woodland planting and interest from landowners and managers. As it only covered 6 out of the 10 Greater Manchester districts, its application to the eastern side of the GM area is limited as the landscape and character of the land here is different. Although the study looked at the constraints to new woodland planting, it did not look at the needs (for woodlands) or potential drivers in detail. Since the study was conducted in 2000 there has been more research and evidence produced highlighting the benefits of a trees and well wooded landscapes whilst at the same time there have been significant increases in land values in the UK.

3.2 Forestry Commission Uplift Calculator – 2012 The National Woodland Creation Tool or Uplift Calculator is a computer programme for presenting information on the potential for woodland creation in different National Character Areas (NCAs) of England. The idea for the programme was borne out of

24" "

"

collaboration between the Forestry Commission and Natural England in the North West. The programme itself is designed to operate in a similar manner to a spreadsheet, whilst at the same time be usable as an easy presentation tool by Forestry Commission and Natural England staff, or other interested parties. It accumulates figures for existing forestry data in a total of 159 individual National Character Areas and illustrates the potential for new woodland creation within them, that potential being expressed as the percentage ‘uplift’.

NCAs across Greater Manchester with their % uplift

The main page of the calculator displays a background map of the NCAs (as shown below) overlaid with a data grid containing the key woodland information. Additional pages can be accessed at the bottom of the grid. These provide supplemental information including a brief description of each Character Area.

25" "

"

Extract from Uplift Calculator For each NCA, the Achievable Uplift is given for the 5 different Landscape Zones. For example, the screenshot above shows that the Manchester Conurbation has an overall uplift of 4.6% - i.e an additional 4.6% of the area of the zone could be planted. The programme also allows the user to amend Achievable Uplift percentages – changes are then automatically updated and converted into Target Woodland (hectares). Uplift within Greater Manchester As the uplift is generated for National Character Areas, it is difficult to estimate what the increases mean on a district level as any one local authority area could contain up to 4 different NCAs. The NCAs that cover Greater Manchester are: Lancashire Coal Measures, Manchester Conurbation, Manchester Pennine Fringe, Mersey Valley, Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain, Southern Pennines and Dark Peak. Each of the 5 Landscape Zones has been assigned a potential uplift percentage and potential hectares of new woodland. The percentages are the same for Zones across all the NCAs and therefore cannot reflect local or regional conditions. The programme allows for users to amend the % uplift. These Zones can be seen below with their default percentage uplift: 26" "

"

• • • • •

Statutory Sensitive Sites Urban Prime Agricultural (1-3a) Moderate Agricultural (3b) Other Rural (ACL 4-5+)

7.0% 4.6% 1.0% 4.5% 7.9%

Looking at the Landscape Zones in a Greater Manchester context, the percentage uplift for Urban, Statutory Sensitive Sites, Other Rural areas are probably too optimistic. Brief explanations for this are below: • •

•

Urban areas – across GM these are generally too built up with hard surface to accommodate much sizeable planting. Statutory Sensitive Sites – those sites that aren’t woodland are usually designated for other valued habitat. In GM these are predominantly the moorland, wetland and grassland or have ground nesting bird interest. The scope here for woodland planting is more limited than the 7% suggested. Other Rural: Much of this Grade 4 and 5 land is on the moorland/moorland fringe and the opportunities here for woodland planting are more limited than the 7.9% estimate.

Prime Agricultural Land – although there might be little scope on the Grade1 land (entirely centred on the mosslands around Salford and Wigan) planting on Grade 2 and 3a may offer greater opportunities than the 1% suggested. Estimates for woodland uplift within the six Red Rose Forest districts (Bury, Bolton, Manchester, Salford, Trafford and Wigan) have been put together based on the average uplift for each NCA. As there is not an average spread of Landscape Zones across the NCAs, this is an estimate. Based on these, the potential uplift for the Red Rose Forest area is 3,443ha. This equates to an extra 2.62% of Greater Manchester and an increase on existing woodland cover of 40%. The Uplift Calculator is a useful tool that can produce meaningful information that can be easily manipulated and presented. It also does not require the use of GIS. However, to be able to get area specific information out, an understanding of the landuse and local factors is needed and this often requires some interpretation of GIS based data or at least access to maps containing this information.

27" "

"

3.3 Pennine Prospects Woodland Opportunities Mapping This study put forward a framework for strategic planning for woodland creation in the South Pennines (Pennine Prospects) area. As well as highlighting the benefits of a well wooded landscape, it also scoped out existing woodland initiatives and project work in the area. Using a GIS based approach, initial background information such as population data and woodland cover was gathered. The study’s ‘needs’ analysis focused on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (rural and urban). The basic unit of size used was the Super Output Area (SOA). Within the most deprived SOAs (top 30% nationally), woodland cover was calculated and a general desirability for new woodlands assumed for those areas with high IMD and low woodland cover. The study used the Forestry Commission’s Uplift Calculator as a starting point to assess the potential for woodland creation within the Pennine Prospects area, and made adjustments to this based on needs data and the desirability of woodland in different types of land. Similar to the Uplift tool, the study broadly grouped land into environmentally constrained, High grade agricultural land, Low grade agricultural land & other and Urban outside environmentally constrained (land). The potential uplift in each of these land categories was adjusted to local conditions from the default percentages listed in the Calculator. Of the total area of land (155,974ha), the study suggested that the existing woodland cover of 7,547ha (4.8%) could be increased by 8,831ha to 16,387ha of potential new planting land – 10% of the total land area and an increase on existing woodland cover of 117%. The study does not go into great detail in either the needs (for new woodland) or constraints or grade the constraint in any way. As such the study should be seen as an initial step to highlight the more fruitful areas of search for more woodland planting. A second, more detailed study, for this area is currently being considered by Pennine Prospects.

28" "

"

Summary There is clearly a wide range of findings between these studies, more than can be ascribed to their different but overlapping study areas. The main differences between the studies are explained below. Quality of baseline data Red Rose Forest Potential Study Forestry Commission Uplift Calculator Pennine Prospects Woodland Opportunities Mapping

Underestimated existing woodland cover (closer to 7% than 5%)

Level of optimism adopted

Incentives considered

Needs mapping used

High

Grant scheme at the time was more generous

No

Good

Low

Only existing

No

Good

Medium

Only existing

Yes

This highlights the importance of a rigorous approach to analysing woodland creation potential, covering: • • • •

Good baseline data A realistic attitude to woodland creation potential, allowing for optimism bias A consideration of a wide range of existing and possible incentives and drivers A good understanding of needs to help prioritise action to achieve benefits for Greater Manchester

29" "

" "

30" "

"

4.

Assessing woodland creation potential

An estimated 6.75% of Greater Manchester is made up of woodlands. Available data suggests that only around 20% of these are in active management, though at least 50% are identified as being publically accessible. We identified constraints to woodland creation as Absolute or Partial and from this produced provisional maps of constrained and unconstrained land. Our provisional mapping indicates 31% of Greater Manchester has no constraints, suggesting an increase in woodland cover of 360% might be possible – nearly 31,000ha of new woodland. An additional 12% of Greater Manchester has partial constraints that might also allow some woodland creation.

4.1 The existing tree and woodland resource Greater Manchester Tree Audit Woodland Data An estimated 6.75% of Greater Manchester is made up of woodlands or small groups of trees (‘treelines’) as measured by the Greater Manchester Tree Audit. Area of 2 treelines (m )

LA Area (ha) Bolton

Treelines Proportion of district

Treelines proportion of GM

13,980

12,867,270

9.20%

1.01%

9,948

5,918,434

5.95%

0.46%

Manchester

11,565

7,258,795

6.28%

0.57%

Oldham

14,278

3,209,671

2.25%

0.25%

Rochdale

15,808

5,945,823

3.76%

0.47%

Bury

Salford

9,719

8,720,920

8.97%

0.68%

Stockport

12,606

11,808,204

9.37%

0.93%

Tameside

10,313

12,113,783

11.75%

0.95%

Trafford

10,604

5,219,028

4.92%

0.41%

Wigan

18,819

13,045,300

6.93%

1.02%

127,641

86,107,229

n/a

6.75%

TOTALS

The total number of woodlands as identified by the Tree Audit (Treeline data) is over 4,000. By area, the largest category of wood size is between 1 and 5 hectares (36%). Woodlands less than 10 hectares make up 63% of the woodland cover. This is in keeping with the general view that small woodlands make up the majority of woodland cover across Greater Manchester. 31" "

"

In terms of height, 37% of woodland spot heights are 10m or less. Spot heights between 10 and 15m make up 34% of the heights measured across Greater Manchester’s woodlands. Woodlands with heights over 25m comprise of just over 2% of heights measured. It is difficult to assign age classes to these heights due to differing mature heights of species and variety of local conditions (soil, exposure etc). However, those trees less than 10m in height could broadly be assumed to be juvenile. Similarly, trees greater than 15m in height could be assumed to be semimature or older.

Woodland Management – the Greater Manchester situation The amount of woodlands in active management in Greater Manchester is difficult to define – in part because the definition of active management varies. In Red Rose Forest we gather annual figures for woodland management - sites that fall into this category could be: • • • •

Where a woodland management plan has been written Where a Forestry Commission grant has been paid (for woodland management work) Where a felling licence has been approved Where we know woodland management has been carried out

This monitoring data is gathered from local authority partners, the Forestry Commission and the Red Rose Forest Team. The amount of woodland brought into management in Red Rose Forest between 1995 and 2013 totals nearly 3,000ha. However it is possible there is some duplication within this figure. If we use existing woodlands (treelines) that are subject to a Forestry Commission management grant as a proxy for woods in management, then we get a figure of 1934ha out of 9089ha total treelines – around 20%. Not all the remaining woodlands could realistically be brought into management, but if we set a target of 30% of unmanaged woods, that would bring an additional 2100ha of woodland into active management.

32" "

"

33" "

!

34! !

!

Landuse This woodland cover needs to be seen in the context of land use across Greater Manchester, with nearly 40% of the area being buildings, hard surfaces, water and gardens. (Source: Generalised Land Use Database 23) This means that around 10% of all open land is woodlands or groups of trees. The percentage area of hard surface of Greater Manchester is between 17 and 23%. This uncertainty is due to the landuse class of ‘Other landuses’ which is generally considered to be mostly hard surface. Approximately 11% of Greater Manchester’s area is covered by biodiversity designations, important wetland habitat or Historic Parks and Gardens. Landuse class

% cover

Domestic Buildings

4.9

Non-domestic buildings

3.0

Roads

8.5

Paths

0.6

Rail

0.5

Domestic gardens

14.5

Greenspace

60.7

Water

1.8

Other

5.5

Domes=c!Buildings! Non@domes=c!buildings! Roads! Paths! Rail! Domes=c!gardens! Greenspace! Water! Other!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 23

!http://data.gov.uk/dataset/land_use_statistics_generalised_land_use_database!

!

35! !

!

4.2 Constraints to woodland creation There are clearly factors which would constrain the ability of new woodlands to be created even if resources and land were available. These constraints can be: • •

Absolute – meaning that they preclude the creation of woodlands or Partial – meaning that while they provide reasons why woodland should not be created, they do not preclude woodland being created in parts of their area or if other factors make woodland creation particularly important. The degree of constraint can vary widely, for example protected landscapes could have more scope than archaeological sites.

The table below sets out the constraints identified, their type and the rationale behind that, and the datasets used to map the constraints. Constraint

Type

Rationale

Datasets to be used

Existing woodlands and orchards

Absolute

New woodland cannot be planted where there is an existing woodland

• • • • • •

Water

Absolute

Cannot plant in standing water.

Built-up areas

Absolute

New woodland cannot be planted in built-up areas (though obviously if brownfield land is created, woodland could be planted).

• • •

GMTA Treelines National Forest Inventory Woodlands Traditional Orchards (NE) RRF orchard data Canals OS Mastermap - Topo_Area Water selection GLUD gives % coverage of hard surfaces at LSOAs level OS Mastermap identifies hard surfaces but difficult to interrogate at GM scale Agricultural Land Classification has Urban classification but very generalised data UMT ‘hard’ use types Manchester Airport Barton Aerodrome

•

Mapping from OS/Aerials

•

Post 1988 Agricultural Land Classification Agricultural Land Classification - Provisional NatMap vector mapping of soils

• •

•

Airports

Absolute

Active minerals or landfill sites (not due to close before 2019?) High-grade Agricultural land

Absolute

Mosslands

Designated Biodiversity sites

Partial

Partial

Partial

Woodland planting precluded by visibility, access and birdstrike issues. Active extraction sites cannot be planted. May be preferable to keep highestgrade land for food production but even here planting may be possible. Re-wetting is preferred use for biodiversity and to some extent carbon storage but if re-wetting not feasible woodland creation can slow/stop carbon loss compared to open cover uses. Wet woodland can act as a good buffer for designated lowland raised bog habitats. Management of the non-woodland habitats on designated sites will be

36! !

• •

(Information currently available to RRF for the Mosslands area rather than the whole of GM)

• •

Special Areas of Conservation Special Protection Areas

!

Biodiversity Action plan habitats, nonwoodland

Partial

Protected landscapes

Partial

Slopes

Partial

Playing fields

Partial

Golf courses

Partial

Planned development and/or infrastructure

Partial

Archaeological features

Partial

the preferred option, but may be some circumstances where woodland creation could be considered, especially woodland creation on upland valleys and moorland margins. Management of the existing BAP habitat is the preferred option but where this management is not sustainable woodland creation could be considered. Would normally be a presumption against large-scale change in protected landscapes but may be site-specific opportunities. Possible to plant on slopes and can help with soil stabilisation but does present operational problems. General presumption against loss of playing fields but often opportunities for woodland creation on parts of sites or where demand had fallen substantially. Often opportunities for smaller-scale planting, especially to reduce management costs. While most of these areas will not be available for woodland creation, may be opportunities for structural planting within development sites or screen/corridor planting along infrastructure. While woodland creation over archaeological features is not usually desirable, it may be preferable to other, potentially damaging, uses – many existing sites are already wooded through natural regeneration.

• •

SSSI Site of Biological Importance (grade C SBI – more scope for habitat change to woodland)

• • •

Fen BAP priority Inventory Lowland Raised Bog Lowland Meadow?

•

Historic Parks and Gardens (English Heritage)

•

AGMA Digital Terrain Model

•

Mapping from OS/Aerials

•

Mapping from OS/Aerials

•

GM Strategy/ existing proposals where known

• •

GMAAS sites register Scheduled Ancient Monuments (English Heritage)

More habitat data could be accessed post identification of specific sites

4.3 Constraints Mapping The maps of the following pages show the provisional results of the constraints mapping. In summary: • • • •

Absolute Constraints have been mapped at 72,165 ha or 57% of GM. Partial Constraints have been mapped as 16,212ha or 12% of GM. Together these give a total constrained cover of 88,377 or 69% of GM, leaving 31% unconstrained. Taking unconstrained and partially constrained together, the land potentially available for woodland creation in 55,546ha or 43% of GM.

37! !

!

The majority of unconstrained land across Greater Manchester is to its north and eastern periphery. In addition to this, there are some larger ‘corridors’ of unconstrained land including; M62/M60 near Rochdale. Greenmount/Tottington/Harwood in Bury/Bolton. Blackrod/Aspull/Wingates in Wigan/Bolton. Bryn/Stubshaw Cross/Lowton in Wigan. Greenfield/Grasscroft/Failsworth in Oldham Tameside.

• • • • •

Rochdale has the largest amount of unconstrained land (7,731ha) followed by Wigan (6,985ha) and then Oldham (5,562ha). There is very little unconstrained land in Trafford (1,284ha), Manchester (917ha) and Salford (990ha). This is to be expected given the more urban nature of these districts – Manchester has 86% coverage of Absolute constraints which will mostly be hard surface. In the partially constrained areas, much more land in Salford (on the mosses) and Trafford (Carrington Moss and Dunham Massey) is identified. Also larger tracks of partially constrained land are picked out on the upland fringes – in particular in Rochdale, Tameside and Oldham. The Red Rose Forest Woodland Potential Study (2000) suggested there was around 47% of unconstrained land in the 6 western districts in Greater Manchester. This higher percentage (+16%) can be explained in part by the more accurate identification of constraints in this study - existing woodland (through the GM Tree Audit) and better estimation of (unplantable) hard surface.

4.4 Constraints to Woodland Management There are many potential reasons why woodlands are not in active management. Some of these are down to the physical attributes of the woodland while others are related to the woodland owner/manager. Quite often there is more than one constraining issue preventing management. The reasons include; • • • • •

Lack of woodland knowledge by owners/managers. No “culture” of woodland management by owners/managers. Lack of access/knowledge of suitable advice. Lack of funding to support uneconomic management operations. Lack of dedicated staff or staff time in dealing with woodland holding (council/organisation owned). 38!

!

!

• • • • • • •

Woodlands seen as a low priority within organisation/business. Lack of awareness/knowledge of Forestry Commission grant schemes. Lack of a management plan or set of operations to follow. Low value or poor quality of timber. Small size of most woodlands – no economies of scale. Vandalism – reducing potential investment in infrastructure. Difficult site access/vehicle access within and to woodland – steep slopes, surrounded by urban development, no access tracks/rides, site entrances not suitable for vehicles.

39! !

!

40! !

!

41! !

!

5.

Where do we need woodlands?

The benefits of woodlands were set out in Section 2, but the needs for those benefits can vary spatially. We have used readily-available datasets and a simple weighting system to create a provisional map of where woodlands are most needed, but we anticipate that this mapping will be modified through work with stakeholders. Need for Recreation, Health, Education and Work and Skills and Volunteering benefits are highest in densely-populated areas where there is little opportunity for woodland creation, so better management of existing woodlands in these areas is a priority. Need for Flood Management and Water Quality benefits are greatest in river valleys and upland areas even though there are likely also to be benefits downstream in higher density urban areas. Need for Wildlife benefits are greatest close to existing woodlands, as many species can only colonise over small distances, and larger areas of woodland can support more viable populations. Appendix 1 includes maps of the raw data described in each section.

5.1

Carbon Storage and Sequestration

As the need for carbon storage and sequestration is global, this has not been mapped.

5.2

Recreation and Health

There is a wide range of ways in which the need for the recreation and health benefits of woodlands could be mapped, but some simple approaches have been followed in this project: •

Population density from 2011 Census – on the basis that high population densities require more woodland to provide the same level of woodland benefits. The Woodland Trust has developed a standard for the provision of woodlands based on their organisational standpoint that ‘in terms of provision of natural greenspace, woods should be seen as the optimal habitat’ (Woodland Trust 2004). This sets the target that: o No person should live more than 500m from at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 2ha in size. o There should also be at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 20ha within 4km (8km round trip) of people’s homes.

42! !

!

The Woodland Trust’s own research found that only 14.5% of the population in England have access to a 2ha wood within 500m compared with 27.8% in Scotland. Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) – high levels of deprivation are often associated with areas of environmental degradation. IMD Health deprivation data as a general indicator of health need Air Quality Management Areas – this map uses the 2007 Greater Manchester AQMA model which is based around traffic and airport emissions, known point sources (e.g. incinerator chimneys) and other factors. A new model is under development and should be available soon, but we are not expecting major changes in the overall pattern of air pollution shown. Road and railway noise – DEFRA Noise Mapping. Future work could usefully include an in-depth investigation of existing woodland and wooded green space recreation sites and a more in-depth search for research on size and location requirements for a range of woodland/natural environment activities.

• • •

• •

5.3 Education and Heritage •

Population density has again been used to map the need for educational and heritage benefits. This could be further refined by the addition of educational attainment data but proximity of large numbers of people would still be the dominant indicator of need.

5.4 Water quality and Flood Management •

•

•

•

Risk of Fluvial flooding is indicated by Environment Agency (EA) Flood Zone 3 – which is comprised of land assessed as having a greater than 1 in 100 annual probability of river flooding. Risk of surface water flooding could be mapped from EA data but is at such fine detail that it would be difficult to read at a strategic scale – it is probably better considered when looking at a site development scale. River catchments – there is identified benefit in having upper parts of catchments more wooded in terms of attenuating flows and reducing pollution ruin-off24 . However, it is difficult to define ‘Upper catchments’ so we have used the current Environment Agency catchment mapping and made a subjective selection of the upper sections of each catchment. This could later be combined with altitude data to give a more empirical dataset. No Water Framework Directive (WFD) data has been mapped as it is very complex and difficult to interpret from simple maps. The Countryside Stewardship Targeting mapping (see Section 6) does include some water quality information, but this is focussed on particular aspects of water quality

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 24

!http://corporate.unitedutilities.com/scamp8index.aspx!

!

43! !

!

such as bathing waters, and so does not address issues of most relevance to Greater Manchester such as Diffuse Urban Pollution.

5.5 Wildlife •

•

•

•

5.6 •

Woodland connectivity for wildlife is a complex issue, with different species having very different requirements in terms of connecting distances, species and habitats. This is an area that could be explored more thoroughly as part of a continuation of the project if required, including developing the approach proposed by Forestry Commission Scotland 25. Habitat fragmentation (of woods) is seen as a principle threat to forest biodiversity. Therefore, a key conservation aim for many species is to expand woodland habitats or create wildlife corridors allowing natural migration. Connectivity can be seen as a function of dispersal ability of species and ‘permeability’ of the surrounding landscape. In this context, permeable landuse types include wood pasture and scrub whereas less permeable types include arable or improved pasture. Indicative distances for High and Moderate biodiversity gains have been compiled for different landuse types – the greatest distance range for the most permeable type is 125 – 500m. In creating woodland planting priority areas, consideration also has to be given to nearby important non-woodland habitats where it would be detrimental to plant trees. The Forestry Commission have used this connectivity principle to compile woodland creation priority areas for the Countryside Stewardship targeting. These areas are focussed around many of the existing woodlands. . In Greater Manchester, much of the surrounding landscape is urban or built on and the scope for expansion is limited. In very low woodland cover areas, isolated planting will be needed to help develop new ‘nodes’ which can form the basis of future habitat networks. As a broad indication, the Woodland Connectivity map uses simple 500m buffers around Core Woodland areas (Ancient Woods and woods within Sites of Biological Importance) to show where new woodlands would help to reduce habitat fragmentation. The Absolute Constraints layer is overlaying the buffer areas but the permeability of the surrounding landuse has not been taken into account or the proximity of other important non-woodland habitats. Therefore the buffer zones, in certain locations, will overestimate the range of where new woodlands could increase connectivity.

Work, skills and volunteering While more advanced mapping based on data held by GMCA and Local Authorities, the Local Economic Partnership, and the 3rd Sector could be used

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 25

!http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcshabitatnetworkguidance.pdf/$FILE/fcshabitatnetworkguidance.pdf!

!

44! !

!

to produce more in-depth mapping, for the purposes of this study we have used Population Density and IMD as indicators of need.

5.7 •

Biomass/Woodfuel There is some incomplete data on existing significant biomass installations and some larger projects under consideration, but as this data in not confirmed it has not yet been mapped. If any one of these larger projects proceeds it could use much of the estimated woodfuel yield of GM, but they are likely to rely much more on waste wood, forestry waste and woodfuel imports. A more useful mapping approach may be to gather data on domestic woodburner installations to identify local markets for log fuel. ..

5.8 Provisional Needs Mapping We have produced a score for each 10m x 10m square in a rectangle drawn around Greater Manchester based on the data from the maps above, and given each dataset a provisional weighting.

Dataset& Treeline!500m!buffer! Flood!zone!3! Upper!catchments! Population!density! IMD!2010!ranking! Health!deprivation! AQMA! Road!and!Rail!Noise!

Possible&Score& 0!(outside)!or!1!(inside)! 0!(outside)!or!1!(inside)!! 0!or!1! 1810!based!on!rank! 1810!based!on!rank! 1810!based!on!rank! 0!(outside)!or!1!(inside)! 0!(outside)!or!1!(inside)!

Weight& 5! 2! 5! 1! 0.5! 0.5! 2! 2!

This approach gives an idea of what this kind of Needs mapping might indicate in terms of spatial priorities, but clearly our weightings are subjective. It would be useful to work with expert groups to review the data and weighting, and it is relatively simple to re-run the mapping using different weightings or to add or remove datasets. The first map below shows the results of the provisional Needs mapping, with red being areas of greater need and green areas of lesser need. The second map overlays the Absolute Constraint map, showing that most of the areas of highest need have little or no opportunities for new woodland creation, though it does suggest that new woodlands in and around urban areas, in river valleys and in the uplands could deliver significant benefits.

45! !

!

The third map shows the locations of existing woodlands, suggesting that better management of woodlands in or close to high-need areas could also deliver significant benefits.

46! !

!

47! !

!

48! !

!

49! !

!

50! !

!

6. Motivations, barriers and incentives to create and manage woodlands The co-operation of landowners is absolutely essential if there is to be a quantum leap in woodland creation and management in Greater Manchester. A number of studies have been carried out looking at landowner and public attitudes to woodlands and their creation. Landowners are currently often motivated to own and plant woodlands more by environmental factors than by potential income – however greater incentives may alter this. Availability of grant may influence decisions to plant but access to support and advice is also important. The Public are generally very supportive of woodlands, and woodlands are popular visitor destinations. Green Belt designation, Land Ownership and location of Major Developments will have major impacts on the delivery of new woodlands in Greater Manchester. The current Forestry Commission grant regime is changing substantially but woodland creation and management will continue to be supported, and delivery of multiple benefits is a key theme of the new grants. !

6.1 Landowners’ motivations If we are to bring about a quantum leap in woodland creation in Greater Manchester it is essential that we gain a much better understanding of local landowners’ objectives and drivers in owning and managing their land. There are likely to be many different motivations; for example some major landowners in Greater Manchester hold land as a long term investment seeking to eventually secure development value for it, some could be considered “hobby farmers” who hold their land out of personal interest and to secure a high quality local living environment whilst others may be working farmers who are trying to secure a sustained livelihood out of their land.

51! !

!

One of the main UK studies into landowners’ motivations26 in relation to woodland creation and management found the following: Objectives, motivations, values and attitudes • There is a clear pattern for landowner reasons for having and planting woodland – landscape and conservation (wildlife and shelterbelt) are ranked highest, with shooting also often high; production and profit come low in priorities and provision of public recreation even lower. • Studies of farmers’ attitudes highlight a shared culture which seeks peer respect based on ‘good’ or ‘correct’ land use. • Non-traditional owners appear to hold more environmental; values and be less interested in profit from their land. Delivery mechanisms • Availability of grants at current rates does appear to influence those who are already interested in woodland but appears not to influence the choices of those who are not interested. • Provision of free expert advice is particularly appreciated and very likely to influence outcomes.

6.2 Public attitudes There is generally strong public support for trees and woods and examples include; •

• •

• •

The public reaction to the proposed disposal of the Forestry Commission in 2010 showed the strength of support for woodlands, with 500,000 signing the petition to stop the sell-off. A YouGov poll found that 84% of the public wanted the forests kept in public hands. General media coverage and concern of ash dieback (confirmed in UK Feb 2012) and other tree diseases. High profile flooding events (such as the recent Somerset Levels flooding) have led to many interviews and reports identifying the potential links between flood alleviation and woodland cover in catchments Woodland creation, especially where it involves public participation, generally attracts high levels of public and political support The Natural England Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE)27 also found that: • Of all the visits to the natural environment, woodland was third most popular at 13% of all visits or 357 million (after Parks and then Public path/ cycleway/bridleway).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 26

!Landowners’+attitudes+to+woodland+creation+and+management.+A+review+of+evidence+in+the+UK!–!Lawrence! and!Dandy,!June!2010!

27

!http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5331309618528256?category=47018!

52! !

!

66 % of all visits to the natural environment were taken within two miles of home, highlighting the importance of accessible local green space. This finding is consistent with that from previous MENE surveys. • Those who had been on visits to mountain and moorland, woodland or the coast were more likely to indicate that they had experienced a positive outcome than those who had been on visits to green spaces in urban areas. The following points are taken from the Forestry Commission’s Public Opinion of Forestry 2013, UK and England28 • Almost two-thirds of respondents have visited forests or woodlands in the last few years. • The proportion of UK respondents in 2013 who had visited woodlands in and around towns (70%) represents a significant increase over the 2011 figure (62%). • 80% agree or strongly agree that ‘trees are good because they remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in wood’. • 55% agree or strongly agree that ‘cutting down forests and woodland makes climate change worse, even if they are replanted’. • Around 85% agree or strongly agree that ‘a lot more trees should be planted’. •

•

However, there are some occasions where local people object to areas of open land being converted to woodlands. This is sometimes because of specific wildlife concerns, like the loss of meadow flora or suitable habitat for ground-nesting birds, but sometimes (as in a recent anti-tree demonstration in Wigan) because people did not want to see any change in a local resource.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 28

!http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/pof2013ukeng.pdf/$FILE/pof2013ukeng.pdf!

53! !

!

6.3 Green Belt Land in the Green Belt has clear potential for woodland creation – the long-term nature of woodland creation lends itself to land on which future development in unlikely. Local Authorities will be making changes to their current Green Belt allocations through the Local Development Frameworks. Some broad indications of likely changes are included in Core Strategy documents, but the actual boundaries of the new Green Belts will only be available when all LAs have an adopted Land Allocations Plan, and to date only one Greater Manchester district (Bolton) has an adopted Local Allocation Plan. For this reason we are using a GM Green Belt dataset dating from 2007 based on Unitary Development Plan mapping. While there will be some changes to these boundaries in coming years, these are not going to be radical and so the overall picture will be similar – if this woodland potential study continues the Green Belt mapping can be updated as Land Allocation Plans are agreed.

54! !

!

6.4 Land Ownership It will obviously be important to better understand land ownership patterns if largescale woodland creation is to be achieved. We hold partial records on land ownership including some local authority land and commercial landowners (see map below). It is however proposed that any future phase of this project should include a more detailed analysis on the ground to more fully determine land ownership information and patterns across Greater Manchester.

55! !

!

6.5 Major Developments Major developments may be barriers to woodland creation if they directly utilise land that could be used for woodland, but they may also be incentives or opportunities – woodland creation can be part of the landscape structure of the development, can be a component in the Sustainable Drainage design, or can be supported through planning obligations or CSR. There may be opportunities, if sufficient safeguards can be put in place to protect developers’ interests, for structural planting to be carried out in advance of developments so that when built they are in a semi mature attractive wooded landscape. The development landscape of Greater Manchester is changing all the time, but the map below uses data on key development/economic zones provided by GMCA as part of the GM Green Infrastructure Strategy work. There is obvious potential for updating this mapping with data from the Local Enterprise Partnership.

56! !

!

6.6 Grant regimes and other assistance The current position regarding woodland grants and incentives in Greater Manchester is as follows; Forestry Commission Grant Schemes England Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) has been running since 2005 and replaced the Woodland Grant Scheme and Farm Woodland Premium Scheme. EWGS is currently in transition towards a Countryside Stewardship grant scheme (until recently called New Environmental Land Management grant Scheme -NELMS) which should be up and open for business in 2015. This is part of the new RDPE programme for England 2014 – 2020. Countryside Stewardship will combine both EWGS and Environmental Stewardship. The full details of the Countryside Stewardship grant is still being worked up but some information is available. The woodland options within Countryside Stewardship currently are: • Woodland Planning Grant – to support the preparation of a United Kingdom Forestry Standard (UKFS) compliant Woodland Management Plan. This will be a pre-requisite to access woodland options within Countryside Stewardship. • Woodland Improvement – to deliver substantial change in supporting Priority Species, Priority Habitats and resilience - using capital and multi annual payments. • Woodland Regeneration – to restore forest potential damaged by nonendemic pests and diseases; to change the species structure of forests for ecological reasons such as restoration of plantations on ancient woodland sites. • Woodland Creation – to support the creation and establishment of new woodlands to increase woodland cover for biodiversity, flood management and water quality. • Woodland Infrastructure – to support the improvement of access for example in bringing under-managed woodlands into management. Woodland Trust Schemes MoreWoods This is the Woodland Trust’s own scheme to encourage native woodland planting. It offers a 60% contribution to project costs (if the owner arranges planting) or 50% of the cost if a planting contractor is involved. The Woodland Trust provides the trees and individual plant protection (if needed) as part of the grant package. Within Red Rose Forest, the Woodland Trust has had a slightly different approach whereby they provide the trees and protection free of charge and the Forest team organise the labour for planting.

57! !

!

The scheme is most suited to small areas that are not eligible for EWGS funds. Schemes that require non-native species or are planted at greater densities that 1000/ha are less likely to receive as much support as native, low density plantings. Tree Packs These free packs of trees and individual tree protection are open to notfor-profit groups where there is some community involvement in the project. Packs come in a variety of sizes 30, 105 or 420 saplings. The packs are themed into different collection of species e.g. the wildlife pack contains hawthorn, rowan, blackthorn, silver birch, hazel and common oak. By their size the packs are aimed at creating small areas of woodland – those that would not be eligible for EWGS due to size criteria. As species mixes cannot be tailored to specific needs and delivery times are fixed by the Trust, they have limited use for larger or more complicated schemes. Red Rose Forest Schemes Advice for Woodland Planting Red Rose Forest has provided an advisory service to all landowners regarding woodland management and planting. In more recent years the woodland planting advice has been available to the whole of Greater Manchester rather than just the Red Rose Forest area. For most landowners, this advice has been free of charge (to the owners) with funds from the Forestry Commission and local authorities supporting officer time. Over more recent years, this funding has diminished and it is increasingly more difficult to secure. Many studies and surveys continue to highlight the need for advice and support in bringing woods into management or creating new ones.

58! !

!

59! !

!

7. Summary of findings and recommendations 7.1 Summary of findings A lot more woodland and better managed existing woods would play an important role in making Greater Manchester a more a more sustainable, attractive, resilient and healthier place in which to live, learn and work. With 31% of Greater Manchester identified as free of physical constraints to woodland creation, and an additional 12% identified as only partially constrained, there is clearly in principle substantial potential for woodland creation in Greater Manchester (see map below). However Red Rose Forest in its 20 years of working to create a more wooded landscape has only succeeded in planting an additional 1,200ha of new woodland. This has been achieved through the provision of a free advice service for landowners with the support of a range of different public grant regimes that have altered slightly over the years. Additional work is therefore required to better understand the existing barriers for landowners in Greater Manchester in creating and managing woodlands and to develop appropriate mechanisms to overcome these barriers.

60! !

!

7.2 Recommendations In terms of increasing the amount of woodland creation and management in Greater Manchester, it is recommended that additional work is undertaken to: • • •

• • •

• •

• •

Identify interested parties who we can bring together to take this issue forward Review the opportunities and identify and action 'low hanging fruit' that can be moved forward quickly Further identify major landowners “on the ground”, with a view to identifying those landowners who may be particularly receptive to woodland planting (including those looking for cash crops, public sector bodies looking to reduce land management costs and developers wishing to provide greater visual amenity) Ground-truth the results of this desk top study Carry out additional work to identify and map woodland and other natural environment sites with public access. Assessment of relative importance of Needs (probably through stakeholder sessions) and, based on this, identification of Priority Areas for woodland creation and management. Explore with landowners the type and level of barriers to woodland creation and management possibly through expert/focus groups and/or 1-to-1 visits. Explore/develop a range of mechanisms to overcome these barriers. These are likely to include some or all of the following; the new government land management grant scheme (Countryside Stewardship), carbon, CSR, Payment for Ecosystem Services, agroforestry, planning gain etc. Test and refine mechanisms with landowners and wider stakeholders. Secure resources to provide a landowner support service to encourage new woodland creation and the management of existing woodland. Consider the potential to also include areas surrounding Greater Manchester for large scale woodland creation and management as the ecosystem services provided by woodland are not governed by administrative boundaries.

It is proposed that this work continues to be co-ordinated by Red Rose Forest in conjunction with The Oglesby Trust but specialised external support is used as needed for particular work areas and these are likely to include influencing work and landowner liaison regarding barriers and the mechanisms to overcome them. In addition to the above, “early win” practical projects could be developed, including: • Agroforestry is a land use management system in which trees or shrubs are grown around or among crops or pastureland. It combines agricultural and forestry technologies to create more diverse, productive and sustainable land-use systems. An urban fringe agroforestry national pilot project could be developed to test and quantify the costs and benefits of commercial scale food production and tree/woodland growing. • Develop a project in an existing woodland area to test and quantify the sustainable benefits (including income) or ecosystem services and costs that can be achieved with a focussed approach on an urban fringe woodland.

61! !

!

62! !

!

Appendix 1 NEEDS MAPPING – RAW DATA

Population density

Index of Multiple Deprivation 63! !

!

Index of Multiple Deprivation – Health Deprivation

Air Quality Management Areas 2007

64! !

!

DEFRA Noise Mapping – First Priority Locations/Other Significant Areas

Water Quality and Flood Management mapping 65! !

!

Wildlife connectivity

66! !

!

Appendix 2 – Provisional Details of Countryside Stewardship scheme for Woodland Creation There will be 2 parts of this grant: an amount to cover capital establishment costs (80% contribution of standard costs) plus 10 year multi-annual payments (£200/ha/year). Early reports have suggested that there will be a minimum application area of 3ha (up from 0.25ha within EWGS) with a minimum block size of 0.5 ha or 1ha if planting for water quality/ Water Framework Directive reasons with a minimum block size of 0.1 ha . but since representations have been made at various levels, it seems that this minimum will be reduced. Implications for future woodland creation particularly in the urban area, could be serious if a relatively large minimum area or block size is required within Countryside Stewardship. Grant Rates Comparisons between EWGS and Countryside Stewardship grant rates are difficult to assess as definitive standard costs for establishment have not been produced and different grant rates were applied within EWGS to different schemes depending on which and how many priorities the planting met. Within Countryside Stewardship there is no specific fund to pay for income forgone in lieu of agricultural activities (currently with Farm Woodland Premium Scheme (FWPS) part of EWGS). The multi-annual payments are there to cover these differences but FWPS payments to farmers were for 15 years. The rate of grant for these varied depending on the agricultural quality of the land under trees (between £90/ha/year up to £300/ha/year). Therefore in purely grant payment terms, the best farmland (Grade 3b and better) will receive less than half the amount of grant aid from Countryside Stewardship compared to FWPS. Other improved land (such as improved grassland) will also receive less (£1000/ha less) due to fewer yearly payments. The poorer (unimproved) land will receive more grant aid support via Countryside Stewardship than under FWPS. Any comparison of grant schemes rates will have to wait until the full details of targeting, payment rates and conditions are issued. Countryside Stewardship Targeting As with many aspects of Countryside Stewardship, the details of the targeting are still evolving as the scheme is brought through the various consultation processes. The Woodland Creation Grant appears to be focused on expanding existing areas of woodland. At a recent targeting consultation event, National Character Area maps were on display illustrating the woodland creation and management priority areas. Woodland Creation priority areas were restricted to buffer areas around some existing woodlands. It appears that these priority areas have been based on increasing woodland habitat connectivity/decreasing woodland habitat creation. Woodland management priority areas were focussed on woodlands that are identified as ‘unmanaged’. Within Greater Manchester most of the woods fall into this category. Quantitative information on the amounts of targeted land shown on the maps is not currently available. 67! !