Constraints on farm woodland planting in England: a study of
Nottinghamshire farmers
C. WATKINS1, D. WILLIAMS1 and T. LLOYD2
1
2
Department of Geography, University of Nottingham, NG7 2RD, England
Department of Economics, University of Nottingham, NG7 2RD, England
Summary
A recent change in British agricultural and forestry policy has been the shift towards the encouragement of substantial planting of new woodland on farmland in England. Previous studies of
farm woodland planting are reviewed. A study of the attitudes of 30 farmers on the Bunter Sandstone in western Nottinghamshire to the establishment of new farm woodland is assessed. It is
concluded that new policy instruments such as special farm woodland planting grants and the
establishment of Community Forests and special regional forestry initiatives have not yet brought
about any significant change in the general opposition of farmers to the conversion of agricultural land to woodland.
Introduction
Throughout most of the present century government policy has aimed to increase the woodland area of Britain. Policies have included the
afforestation of large areas by the Forestry
Commission and the support of private
afforestation through tax concessions and government grants. These policies have been successful in that the proportion of Britain that is
woodland has doubled from around 5 per cent
in 1990 to 10 per cent at present. Even so,
Britain has substantially less woodland than
most European countries of a similar size: Spain
(31 per cent), France (27 per cent), and Italy (23
O Instirute of Chartered Foresters, 1996
per cent) all have more than double Britain's
proportion of woodland.
In the past most planting of new woodland
has been in the form of large scale coniferous
plantations in the uplands and on poorer land in
the lowlands. In recent years, however, there
have been significant shifts in government
forestry policy. In the 1980s there was a move
towards the encouragement of the planting of
broadlcaved trees largely as a result of environmental concerns (Watkins, 1986; Grayson,
1993). More recently the apparent excess of agricultural land within the EU has resulted in a further shift in policy towards the establishment of
Forestry, Vol. 69, No. 2, 1996
168
FORESTRY
12 new lowland forests called Community
Forests and one new National Forest. These are
seen as means of improving recreational facilities and having nature conservation and landscape benefits, as well as making use of
superfluous land. The intention is that most of
this planting should be on land not owned by
the Forestry Commission (Countryside Commission, 1993, 1994).
The House of Commons Agricultural Committee (1990) commented 'forestry is likely to be
the most extensive alternative land use [for agricultural land]: it has the potential to offer an
attractive balance between commercial viability
and environmental enhancement'. The first
Farm' Woodland Planting Scheme was introduced in 1988. Other schemes include the
Forestry Commission's Woodland
Grant
Scheme with 'Better Land' and 'Community
Woodland' Supplements and the revised Farm
Woodland Premium Scheme. The success of
such schemes depends to a large extent upon the
willingness of farmers to plant woodland. The
aim of this paper is to investigate farmers' attitudes to woodland planting and the extent to
which recent policy changes may be affecting
their views on this issue.
Previous studies of farm woodland
planting
The results of several studies of farm woodland
planting over the last 15 years or so from different parts of Britain are now available.
Research undertaken in Nottinghamshire in the
early eighties (Watkins 1984 a, b; 1987) demonstrated that there was generally a negative attitude among landowners towards the woodland
planting grants then being offered. Of the 72
farms and estates surveyed, only 17 had received
grant aid, despite all of these estates possessing
some area of woodland. Indeed, only five of the
33 farms had received grants. Generally the
grants were deemed not to encourage planting
but would be utilized if any planting were to
take place. Furthermore the level of knowledge
of the levels of grant available was very low
among farmers, at about 10 per cent. The main
reasons for the lack of interest in planting
included a lack of suitable area to plant, emphasizing the peripheral nature of woodland on
farms and estates. Other reasons were that the
grants were not high enough, that forestry was
too long term and also that some landowners
were simply not interested in woodland.
These findings have been substantiated by
research carried out in other parts of the country. These are made more significant as they
were largely carried out after policy changes
had shifted planting emphasis into the lowlands
and particularly onto productive agricultural
land. From research carried out during the late
1980s, Bishop (1991, 1992) noted that farmers
are faced with a plethora of schemes aimed at
curbing agricultural production, for which
woodland has been identified as the most extensive alternative land use. In an interview of 120
farmers in three study areas Bishop (1990)
attempted to examine the factors that influence
farm woodland adoption and diffusion. He
found that the majority of respondents interviewed (over 90 per cent) were not interested in
new woodland planting. The reasons stemmed
largely from the long-term commitment and
unsure financial returns from forests, and
appeared to be deep rooted. Bishop (1992) concluded that farm woodland creation was
unlikely to be adopted as an alternative land use
under the present circumstances:
The various new forest proposals that have
been launched during recent years are heavily
reliant on private interest because of the pattern of British landownership yet offer very
little incentive to private landowners to participate in new woodland creation. Indeed the
idea of woodland creation, especially when
linked to increased public access to the countryside, is a complete anathema to many private landowners (Bishop 1992, p. 154).
Scambler (1989) came to similar conclusions
from her 1987 survey of farmers in the agricultural hinterland of Stirling. She found that
FARM WOODLAND PLANTING
farmers in the study showed little interest in
forestry, though the degree of interest did vary
with age, tenure, farm size and farm type. Furthermore, economic incentives were too low to
overcome unfavourable tradition-bound attitudes towards forestry, and woodlands were
only likely to be established on the most marginal areas of the farm. Two very recent reviews
of farm forestry and the effectiveness of planting grants were carried out by Ni Dhubhain and
Gardiner (1994) and Sandys (1994). The former
of the two was concerned with farm forestry in
the Republic of Ireland and Scotland and concluded that the vast majority of farmers remain
uninterested in converting parts of their farm to
forestry despite the sizeable financial incentives
that are now available. The study by Sandys
(1994) of 36 woodland owners and managers
found that woodland grants were thought to be
inadequate by 66 per cent of respondents. Other
parts of the grant system such as the management grants and the additional supplements
were viewed with uncertainty and were thought
to be badly organized and inadequate.
The 12 Community Forests and the New
National forest created in the late 1980s have all
undertaken research in this area. Two Community Forests in particular have investigated the
problem of persuading farmers to plant woodland. The Great Western Community Forest
(1992) investigated the opportunities and constraints for involvement by farmers in the Community Forest. It found that the main
constraints to planting were linked to long-term
uncertainty (particularly with regard to grant
payments and agricultural price support which
prevents farmers risking planting at the
moment), the inadequacy of planting grants,
and lack of expertise. The report noted that the
gap between annual income payments under the
Farm Woodland Premium Scheme and any
significant income from thinnings was still too
large, but might be overcome by the introduction of a 20 per cent non-rotational woodland
set-aside option.
The Marston Vale farm survey (unpublished
1994) involved 75 farmers. It considered atti-
169
tudes to, and understanding, of the Community
Forest and investigated levels of grant awareness, planting objectives and constraints and
public access issues. Once again, a high proportion of the farmers (73 per cent) had a poor
knowledge of the planting grant system. The
usual suite of reasons for not planting again
came to light: 'woodland not financially viable',
'no spare land', 'tenure restrictions', 'inflexibility' and 'uncertainty'.
Survey evidence to date reveals that farmers
have a generally negative attitude to woodland
planting and that there are several perceived
constraints that prevent them from taking up
woodland planting, the most important being
the inadequate financial incentive involved. The
Community Forest reports are generally more
optimistic about the likelihood of farm woodland planting compared with the independent
researchers, but the teams recognize that they
have a difficult job to perform. Frequently farm
woodland establishment is seen as something
that it is hoped will follow on from an initial
stage of woodland establishment on publicly
owned land. The Cleveland Community Forest
(1992) notes that:
the initial woodland planting, which will
form the core of the community forest, will
take place on publicly-owned, or non-agricultural and derelict land. Farmers who see
benefit in woodland planting to improve their
holding will then complement this initial
planting.
Nottinghamshire Farm Woodland Survey
A personal interview survey of farmers in west
Nottinghamshire was undertaken in the spring
and summer of 1994. The aim of the survey was
to examine attitudes towards woodland and
woodland planting. The study area is of particular interest because it includes part of the
Greenwood Community Forest (1993) and is
also within the sphere of influence of the
Forestry Commission's Sherwood Initiative
(Forestry Commission, 1993). Both these
170
FORESTRY
schemes aim to increase the area of farm woodland. The study area also includes two Nitrate
Sensitive Areas. The area is physically uniform
located upon the highly permeable Bunter Sandstone which creates a landscape of low, undulating hills and dry valleys and gives rise to a
poor, light and pebbly soil (Watkins, 1981; Seymour, 1989; Brady, 1992). The free draining
nature of the soil here has a major influence
upon the types of agriculture that can be practised upon the land, though modern techniques
allow the production of high quality cereal and
root crops.
All 51 farmers identifiable from Yellow Pages
with holdings in the study area were contacted
and 30 of these agreed to be interviewed
(Williams etal., 1994). A standard questionnaire
was used although the opportunity was also
taken to explore the issues of farm woodland
planting in a wide-ranging interview. Themes
discussed included general attitudes to woodland, the adequacy of the present grant system,
agricultural change and thoughts about the new
Community Forests and Sherwood Initiative.
The average farm size, excluding one exceptionally large holding, was 197 ha. The total
area of land occupied by those interviewed was
9775 ha of which 320 ha (3.3 per cent) was
woodland. Two-thirds (19) of the farms had
0.25 ha or more of woodland. All but one of the
farms surveyed consisted of some freehold land;
in 17 cases some land was also rented.
The main crops were cereals, root crops and
legumes. Oil seeds were also important, and
were often grown as an industrial crop on setaside land. Irrigation is very important in this
area due to the highly permeable nature of the
Bunter Sandstone which is very unretentive of
water (Makings, 1945). However the area is
underlain by a valuable aquifer that is used
extensively for drinking water and irrigation.
Farmers generally need licences to exploit this
resource; if this was not possible the farming
conditions would be far more difficult and certain crops such as potatoes would be largely
excluded. Sixteen farmers held these licences
and most thought that its removal would be
detrimental to their farm's viability. However,
none of the farmers thought that forestry would
be a viable alternative under these conditions. A
wide range of diversification had taken place
ranging from farm shops and farm centres to
specialist crops, caravan rallies and go-cart
tracks.
Farmers' attitudes to woodland planting
The survey revealed that farmers had a wide
variety of attitudes to woodland. Most stated
that they liked to see woodland and trees in the
landscape. Five owners who had planted using
FC grants suggested that such plantations
enhanced the countryside, and gave personal
pleasure. A small minority of farmers were keen
on managing their existing woodland to
improve its condition: one was reintroducing
management to a neglected wood he had
recently purchased. Farmers generally used their
woodland for recreation, amenity, wildlife and
sport (see Table 1), though one farmer used his
woodland as a source of fuel and farm timber
and a number of others maintained it to provide
shelter for the soil which is prone to severe erosion in this area. One farmer had a specific policy of removing existing woodland but
replacing equivalent amounts in other locations
Table 1: Reasons for maintaining existing woodlands,
in order of importance
Reasons for maintenance
Times
mentioned
Recreation/amenity
Wildlife/conservation
Increase/create new game/sporting income
Shelter
Economic motives (e.g. including grants)
Farm timber
Tradition
Too costly to uproot
Increase capital value of farm
Community woodland
14
8
6
5
1
1
1
1
0
0
Note: respondents could give more than one reason.
FARM WOODLAND PLANTING
so as to maximize the efficiency of the farm's
organization and the availability of high quality
land: his new plantations were on areas of
poorer land.
Most of the farmers within the survey had
undertaken some minor planting of trees
around the farm, most notably in hedgerows,
field corners and around the farm house. This
had been undertaken for amenity reasons and
was done without significant grant aid, though
occasionally the trees had been provided by the
Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG)
or the County Council. None of the farmers
possessing woodland wished to diminish the
area they had. Some noted that this would not
be possible anyway due to the presence of Tree
Preservation Orders (TPOs) and one Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This hints however
that a lack of removal is quite different from
actual positive maintenance. These results are
very similar to those found by Watkins (1987)
and Williams (1993) in studies of the positive
uses of Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire
woodlands respectively.
Whatever their attitudes to existing woodland, farmers do still have a negative attitude to
woodland planting. It is one thing to have a
small amount of woodland scattered around the
farm in field corners and along boundaries; it is
quite another to be investing time, energy, and
money into expanding that area by planting
agricultural land or indeed carefully managing
what woodland already exists. The reasons for
this lack of interest in the establishment of new
woodland are shown in Table 2. By far the most
important reason for not planting is the lack of
financial incentive. Many of the farms in the
study area are small, often less than 100 ha, and
so to plant any amount of woodland would be
to replace productive agricultural land with a
form of land use that gives low returns over a
longer term. Only on the larger farms can some
income be foregone in order to plant trees. The
respondents were used to obtaining an annual
return from their agricultural land and the general view was that the person planting the
woodland was unlikely to benefit from any
171
Table 2: Reasons for not planting woodland, in order
of importance
Reasons
Lack of financial incentive
High initial cost (specifically)
Low p.a. return (specifically)
Time lag
Loss of flexibility
No spare land
Public access clauses
Reduction of hope value
Lack of time
Poachers/vandals encouraged
Uncertainty
Irreversibility
Already a well wooded area
Prefer set-aside/NSA schemes
No interest in trees
Complex grant application
Poor quality of farm woods
Pest problems
Poor location characteristics
Landlord consultation needed
Reduces land value
Numbers
26
(7)
(8)
14
12
11
9
8
7
7
6
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Note: respondents could give more than one reason.
significant financial returns. This aspect is particularly important to older farmers who would
gain the least benefit from woodland.
Several farmers mentioned that the long term
effect of a woodland planting decision also
exacerbates a number of other constraints.
There was concern that the existing woodland
grant schemes were in a state of flux; farmers
thought that they could change at almost any
time in the future and they might miss out upon
more favourable rates. There was also widespread concern about uncertainties within agriculture in general, especially with regard to
possible changes in the Common Agricultural
Policy, which might remove or reduce support,
or change the rules to schemes such as set-aside.
Any of these changes might have important
implications for the running of the farm and so
farmers were concerned about low return projects such as woodland in such periods of uncertainty. The following comments were made:
172
FORESTRY
We will plant no more, until the set-aside
decision on woodland.
Uncertainty is a major factor in all farming,
especially toward woodlands with regard to
the CAP. It could change substantially and
nobody knows what form it might take.
Other aspects of this problem are felt by farmers adjacent to urban areas where the threat of
urban overflow swallowing the farm makes the
initial outlay for planting woodland seem very
unattractive if the woods planted are not likely
to reach maturity:
We have an uncertain future here (adjacent to
urban area). We don't know how long we
will remain here and trees are very long-term.
Another major problem identified by the
respondents was the perceived irreversibility
and reduced flexibility brought about by the
conversion of agricultural land to woodland.
Twelve farmers mentioned the belief that woodland, once established, tends to become an
almost permanent feature of the landscape, and
is therefore an irreversible change of land use. If
future changes cannot be accommodated due to
'protected' woodland covering the land, then
obviously farmers be less willing to plant woodland:
There is a worry that you lose control of
woodlands due to preservation orders, SSSIs
etc. The flexibility of the farm will be gone.
As a long term project, woodland may not be
reversibleIt is easy to sell arable land but not to sell
wooded land. It then becomes a permanent
bind.
A specific form of irreversibility is the loss of
'hope value' which may occur when woodland
occupies land that might have been used for
future building development.
An additional major sticking point for farmers in this area in particular is the belief that
woodlands tend to exacerbate the already
difficult problem of public access and associated
vandalism. The very nature of woodlands as a
concealing and often peripheral land use may
mean that vandalism on the farms may increase,
and also trespass can become more of a problem. One respondent noted that:
There is a lot of vandalism here: fires in the
woods, people cutting down trees. I put the
farm gate back on its hinges almost every
morning! For these reasons a member of staff
is always on duty, day and night.
The study area may be prone to this more than
some more rural, isolated areas but it is
undoubtedly a concern of many farmers. In
addition some farmers interpret that the very
existence of the Greenwood Community Forest
implies that public access may become more or
less compulsory within their woodlands.
Several farmers were keen to take up other
schemes not involving woodland establishment
that will reduce agricultural intensity and provide environmental benefits. For example two
farmers specifically mentioned that they would
rather focus their attention upon the new
Nitrate Sensitive Areas (NSAs) scheme than
plant woodland. Under this scheme farmers
within defined areas may receive payments in
return for voluntarily helping to protect valuable supplies of drinking water by reducing
nitrate inputs to and outflows from agricultural
land (MAFF, 1994). The grants available under
this scheme are in many areas more favourable
than those for woodland and are also interpreted as being less likely to reduce future flexibility. Woodland planting is presently not an
option under this scheme though one farmer
mentioned that it might be a good idea to incorporate such an option in the future. A similar
problem exists with the present conditions
applying to set-aside, and some farmers would
rather spend their time and energy getting the
most from this scheme, which although effectively compulsory at a basic level, does have
voluntary options for expanding the scheme on
individual farms. When questioned about where
they would plant woodland if it were to receive
greater grant aid, the farmers' responses indicated that it would placed on the poor infertile
FARM WOODLAND PLANTING
banks, waterlogged areas, awkward corners and
steep slopes. Many of these areas will be unimproved and hence are the very sites that are
likely to have a relatively high nature conservation value and which should not, in terms of
nature conservation, be converted to woodland
(Watkins, 1993a).
Farmers' awareness of local woodland policy
initiatives proved to be varied. All the respondents had received information about the
Greenwood Community Forest, but only just
over half (17) believed that they possessed
sufficient knowledge about it. About a quarter
of the farmers had actually been involved with
the Greenwood directly, in steering committees
or through the National Farmers' Union, but
despite this high level of familiarity none of the
farmers was considering planting woodland
under the scheme. The Greenwood faces several
major hurdles, not least of which are farmers'
concerns about increased public access that they
believe to one of the linchpins of the Community Forest ethic. In addition there is a perception that they have been included within the
Greenwood area without consultation. One
farmer made this situation particularly clear:
We are not happy that we are included within
the Greenwood Community Forest without
our consent—even if it is supposedly voluntary . . . the very term 'Community' will
imply to some people that they have the right
to walk on our private land.
Farmers were also asked their views on schemes
that involve organizations taking over the
planning and management of woodland on a
farm. Schemes run by English Woodlands
(1994) and the Woodland Trust (1994) fall into
this category. These schemes received a fairly
positive reaction: 18 out of 30 farmers said they
would use these schemes if they were to plant
some time in the future. However the existence
of such schemes did not seem to change farmers general attitude to woodland planting.
Those farmers who disliked the schemes complained that they would take away their independence.
173
Conclusions
The main conclusion from this survey is that the
farming community in the study area is still
largely uninterested in planting trees. This situation still exists despite the efforts that have
been put into improving the planting grants, setting up the Community Forests and the Sherwood Initiative, and attempting to heighten
farmers' awareness of tree planting. Most farmers are not against woodland per se, but do not
appreciate it on their farmland, which they see
as a preserve for agricultural production, even
to the point of it being 'morally' wrong to convert it to woodland after so many have struggled in the past to make the land cultivable.
This is true even in the study area where the
land is naturally poor for agriculture, though at
the present time the sandlands are producing
good quality crops with the intensive input of
fertilizers and the use of irrigation.
Woodland is inevitably relegated to the very
poorest land which cannot be cultivated successfully, in order to maintain the existing farm
output. Hence the role of forestry as an alternative land use and as a means of reducing agricultural surpluses is limited (Scambler, 1989).
This is despite the identification of forestry as
the main alternative use for surplus agricultural
land. Bishop (1992) has pointed out that the
lack of a recent history of farm woodland creation in Britain means that woodland planting
must be viewed as an innovation. As with many
innovations, it may take a long time to catch
on. Clearly there is a wide array of perceived
constraints to farm woodland planting and
while economics is at the crux of the problem it
is not unreasonable to suspect that non-economic factors play a very important role. Generally woodlands are deemed not to be part of
the farm and arc treated as of peripheral interest even by those actively planting and managing their woodlands.
The survey demonstrated that the negative
attitude of farmers towards planting woodland
is steeped in concern about the viability of the
farm, their livelihoods, future uncertainty,
174
FORESTRY
woodland irreversibility and the long term
nature of forestry. Low margins from the land
are already threatening smaller farmers, and
more land often cannot be spared especially
with set-aside already eating into the cultivated
area. The long pay-back period, always a consideration in forestry, causes great problems for
farmers, many of whom need to maintain maximum flexibility and maximum income. Long
term uncertainty, especially over grant aid payments for woodlands and the CAP in general,
was also noted in the report by the Great Western Community Forest (1992). This noted that
farmers feel they cannot risk doing anything at
present towards woodland planting. Flexibility
is always preferred so that easy changes can be
made if new agricultural conditions arrive.
The decision to establish new woodland is
long term and the costs involved in its creation
tend to act as a buffer to its removal at least
until the timber has reached maturity and is
ready for felling. It is possible that if threats of
irreversibility were removed, some farmers
would be more likely to plant woodland (Lloyd
etal., 1994). Bishop (1992) noticed this problem
and suggested that a possible reform of environmental policy might include a complete
removal of woodlands from the planning system to avoid any perceived threat of TPOs preventing felling. This proposal tends, however,
to underestimate the importance of TPOs as a
long stop for the protection of woodland of
high amenity value. Of course, where no timber
crop is expected and the woodlands were established solely for amenity, landscape or recreation, there may be little income from the
woods.
The present grants available are seen by
farmers as inadequate for the task that is now
being allotted to them. Even the extra incentives
focused upon farmlands have been relatively
unsuccessful in persuading new farmers to
undertake woodland planting, despite the
amount of new planting that has occurred
nationwide under these schemes. Results from
the study area showed a surprising level of ignorance about the existing grant structure and the
way it is organized. Of those interviewed, 83 per
cent had not utilized grants, and most of these
knew little about them. A similar lack of knowledge, 73 per cent, was discovered in the
Marston Vale Community Forest (unpublished
1992) survey of farmers. They also noted that
landscape, wildlife and sporting values should
not be underestimated by the farmer, although
returns from these uses, including shooting, are
often difficult to quantify (Watkins, 1993b).
It is also doubtful whether the present grant
system is actually acting as an encouragement,
or a bonus for those farmers who would have
planted anyway. Our Nottinghamshire survey
suggested that four out of the five who had used
grants to restock or plant new woodland would
have planted if grants had not been available.
Both Bateman (1992) and Cater (1994) suggest
that grants are not a motivating force for owners but may facilitate activity under the right
circumstances. It is possible then, that the
grants system could be classified as an intervention failure.
The existence of the Greenwood Community
Forest scheme does not yet appear to have
encouraged farmers to plant on their arable
land. There was a very low level of enthusiasm
about this scheme, and a rather negative attitude in that many farmers disliked being
included within the area without their consent.
The Sherwood Initiative appeared to be treated
with similar apathy. Of course, the Community
Forests are still a very new policy initiative, and
it can be argued that as planting gradually
'takes off local farmers and landowners will
become more favourably disposed towards the
establishment of new farm woodland, particularly if they already have some woodland on
their land. The reports produced by the Community Forests support the general tenor of the
results given in this paper, but tend towards the
side of optimism in order to avoid 'talking
down' the project they are trying to promote.
The Mersey Community Forest (1993) is
unusual in describing some negative findings in
its draft for consultation.
The results of this study suggest that farm
FARM WOODLAND PLANTING
woodland creation is unlikely to occur on any
large scale, despite existing incentives, because
woodland is uneconomic compared with most
arable crops and there is a long time span
between the initial capital invested and any
returns. When these economics are allied to the
uncertainty and inflexibility that woodland
introduces to a block of land, it is relatively easy
to understand why farmers are reluctant to
plant woodland. However, despite these conclusions it is not unreasonable to suspect that
personal attitudes and instilled beliefs about
woodland remain among the main obstacles to
planting, after all, most existing woodlands on
farms are not integrated into the running of the
farm business.
The review of the public forestry sector,
released in July 1994, announced new incentives
to encourage private sector planting of commercial woodland. The incentives are being
increased by 10 per cent, with £3m in new
money and an additional £lm reallocated from
reduced grants for replanting (Maitland, 1994).
These recent policy changes have largely been
the result of public pressure to maintain public
access to woodlands and to increase the wooded
area for environmental and commercial reasons.
The results of this study suggest that such
increases in incentives will not be enough to
encourage commercial farmers
to plant
significant areas of woodland.
References
Bateman, I. 1992 The United Kingdom. In Forests:
Market and Intervention Failures. S. Wibe and T.
Jones (eds). Earthscan, London.
Bishop, K.D. 1990 Multi-purpose Woodlands in the
Countryside Around Towns, PhD Thesis. University of Reading.
Bishop, K.D. 1991 Community forests: implementing
the concept. The Planner, 24th May, 6-10.
Bishop, K.D. 1992 Britain's new forests: public
dependence on private interest? In Restructuring
the Countryside: Environmental Policy in Practice.
A.W. Gilg (ed.). Avebury Studies Green Research.
Brady, A. 1992 Forestry in Nottinghamshire. Forestry
65 (2), 103-126.
Cater, J. 1994 Small woodlands and their owners: the
Silvanus experience. Q. ]. For. 88 (2), 128-133.
175
Cleveland Community Forest 1992 Agriculture and
the Cleveland Community Forest. Discussion Paper
No 6. Cleveland Community Forest, Middlesborough.
Countryside Commission 1993 The National Forest
Strategy: Draft for Consultation. Countryside
Commission, Cheltenham.
Countryside Commission 1994 Community Forests.
Countryside Commission Community Forest Unit,
London.
English Woodlands 1994 Farm Woodland Finance
Scheme Leaflet. English Woodlands Ltd., Newbury.
Forestry Commission 1993 Sherwood Initiative.
[Leaflet] Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
Grayson, A.J. 1993 Private Forestry Policy in Western
Europe. CAB International, Wallingford.
Great Western Community Forest 1992 Great Western Community Forest and the Farmer. Great
Western Community Forest, Swindon.
The Greenwood Community Forest 1993 The Greenwood Community Forest Plan: Draft for Consultation. The Greenwood Community Forest,
Hucknall.
House of Commons 1990 Agriculture Committee.
Land Use and Forestry, Second Report, Vol. 1.
House of Commons Paper 16-1, (Session 1989-90).
HMSO, London.
Lloyd, T., Watkins, C. and Williams, D. 1994 Turning Farmers into Foresters: Some Comparative Statics of Woodland Demand. Discussion Papers in
Economics, University of Nottingham 94/14.
MAFF 1994 Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme—Information Pack. MAFF Publications, London.
Makings, S.M. 1945 The Economics of Poor Land
Arable Farming. Edward Arnold, London.
Maitland, A. 1994 Woodlands avoid sell-off. Financial Times, 19th July 1994, p. 8.
The Mersey Forest 1993 Forest Plan: Draft for Consultation. The Mersey Forest, Warrington.
Ni Dhubhain, A. and Gardiner, J.J. 1994 Farm
Forestry in the Rural Economy. Discussion paper
presented at AES Conference, Exeter.
Sandys, P. 1994 The woodland grant scheme: a
review from the perspective of owners and managers. Q. / . For. 8S(1), 20-26.
Scambler, A. 1989 Farmer's attitude towards
forestry. Scott. Geogr. Mag. 105 (1), 47-49.
Seymour, S. 1989 The 'Spirit of Planting': Eighteenthcentury parkland 'improvement' on the Duke of
Newcastle's north Nottinghamshire estate. East
Midland Geographer 12 (1 & 2), 5-13.
Watkins, C. 1981 An historical introduction to the
woodlands of Nottinghamshire. In The Study and
Use of British Woodlands C. Watkins and P.T.
Wheeler (eds). Dept. of Geography, University of
Nottingham, 1-24.
176
FORESTRY
Watkins, C. 1984a The use of grant aid to encourage
woodland planting in Great Britain. Q. ]. For. 78
(4), 213-224.
Watkins, C. 1984b The planting of woodland in Nottinghamshire since 1945. East Midland Geographer
8, 147-158.
Watkins, C. 1986 Recent changes in government policy towards broadleaved woodland. Area 18.(2),
117-122.
Watkins, C. 1987 The future of woodlands in the
rural landscape. In The Future of the British Rural
Landscape. D.G. Lockhart and B. Ilbery (eds).
Geobooks, Norwich, 71-96.
Watkins, C. 1993a Forest expansion and nature conservation. In Ecological Effects of Afforestation.
Studies in the History of Ecology of Afforestation in
Western Europe. C. Watkins (ed.). CAB International, Wallingford, 1-14.
Watkins, C. 1993b Game management in England:
preliminary results from the Game Management
Project. In The Retreat. Rural Land-use and European Agriculture. E.C.A. Bolsius, G. Clark and J.
Groenendijk (eds). Royal Dutch Geographical
Society, Amsterdam, 120-132.
Williams, D.J. 1993 Woodland Change in the Needwood Forest since 1880: Its Nature and Causes. BA
thesis. University of Exeter.
Williams, D.J., Lloyd, T. and Watkins, C. 1994
Farmers not Foresters: Constraints on the Planting
of New Farm Woodland. Department of Geography, University of Nottingham, Working Paper 27.
The Woodland Trust 1994 Licence Planting Scheme.
The Woodland Trust, Grantham.
Received 14 November 1994