The Draft National Planning Policy Framework has been drawn up with the intention of replacing over a thousand pages of national policy with around fifty so that people and communities can become more directly involved in the process of planning.

The Policy Framework which was published in July 2011 has, at its heart, a presumption in favour of "Sustainable Development" where in the Policy Framework:

"Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations."

and

"Development means growth. We must accommodate the new ways by which we will earn our living in a competitive world. We must house a rising population, which is living longer and wants to make new choices. We must respond to the changes that new technologies offer us. Our lives, and the places in which we live them, can be better, but they will certainly be worse if things stagnate."

and where

"Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay - a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable."

but can it?

As Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book "The Black Swan: The impact of the highly improbable" points out, all the evidence in the world pointed to swans being white; until that is, Australia was discovered. So it is with our ideas of what might constitute sustainable today; how can we possibly know until the decades have passed and the damage has been done? A qualified presumption in favour, where the qualification can't possibly be determined now, is ludicrous.

Which brings us to our central concern with the Draft National Planning Policy Framework. Notwithstanding our inability to predict the future we are alarmed that the development of green spaces is rarely if ever reversed and that a presumption in favour of their development is likely to irrevocably compromise the well-being of future generations. Should we deny them the opportunity to use that land for agriculture, horticulture, woodland, coppice, energy production, recreation, amenity or as wildlife habitat?

A number of key trends suggest that we should be extremely careful before we contemplate the irreversible.

The world population today is estimated to be very close to reaching 7 billion people. In just 15 years from now the world population may have risen to 8 billion with a further rise to 9 billion by the mid-2040s.

In the UK the population is currently estimated at 63 million people with many forecasting a rise to over 70 million by 2030. In the UK, most of the growth in population will occur in the south-east of England close to London, already one of the world's most densely populated areas, but coincidentally home to the UK's most productive farmland.

Rising wealth throughout the world with a more widespread demand for higher calorie intakes and in particular for meat, may put huge pressure on the world's agricultural system. This will come at a time when the UK's ability to feed itself is already strained. In 1996 the UK had a trade deficit in foods to the value of £8 billion. By 2009 this had risen to over £18 billion with self-sufficiency in indigenous foods at just over 70%. If the UK's population continues to rise as forecast, maintaining food security may become a political imperative. And why risk it when we haven't even yet started the discussion on how to utilise our city spaces more efficiently? If the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has both the highest population density and the highest house prices (reflecting demand), surely there really is a better way? And until we have determined exactly what that is, put it into practice and exhausted every possible opportunity to further it, we believe it utterly irresponsible for a National Planning Policy Framework to presume in favour of development that will lead to a loss of green space.

With plenty of uncertainty ahead we should be acting with greatest of prudence.

Disinterest:

Gordon Brown’s decision to sell over half of Britain's gold reserves between 1999 and 2002 at prices below $300 per ounce was widely condemned at the time. Today, with the price of gold standing at over $1300 per ounce, the sale represents a loss of over £10Bn. But, however foolish the decision was, at least The Government could go back into the market and over a number of years and reacquire the reserves. One gold bar is after all pretty much the same as another.

Regrettably the Government’s next asset sale won’t retain such flexibility – any decision to sell the Forestry Commission’s English woodland portfolio (around 2% of the land area) will be one that is as good as permanent. That’s troubling.

State forestry was first formalised in 1829 and later expanded with The Crown Lands Act of 1832. In the early part of the 19th Century afforestation was pursued to ensure an adequate supply of timber for the Royal Navy but the later development of iron hulled ships and the removal of duties on imported timber led to a decline in prices and a loss of interest in domestic forestry. By the start of the First World War Britain was importing 90% of its timber needs.

Disruption to supplies during the First World War provided the impetus for review with the conclusion that a national forestry commission should be established with the authority to pursue a programme of afforestation on strategic grounds, in 1919 The Forestry Act established the Forestry Commission.

Between the First and Second World War the Forestry Commission acquired Crown forests and woodlands and purchased over 650,000 acres of new land for planting. By 1939 some 370,000 acres had been planted and three National Forest Parks opened.

The Second World War saw shortages of imported timber and a massive expansion of domestic forestry. With the prospect of post-war shortages the Forestry Commission's role was expanded on strategic grounds and following the war was supported by a dedication scheme of afforestation grants that could be made to land owners. In 1951 a new Forestry Act made permanent to the Commission, powers to control felling and to promote the establishment and maintenance in Great Britain, of adequate reserves of growing trees.

In the following years a number of additional Acts saw the role of the Commission change with a growing emphasis on the management of forestry for recreational and amenity purposes while incentives designed to encourage afforestation were directed through the tax system rather than through grant aid. In 1992 the Commission was restructured into two main arms: Forest Enterprise being responsible for managing the commercial activities while a Department of Forestry took over administrative and policy functions.

Last week Defra announced a consultation to consider the disposal of all Forestry Commission land in England. It is perhaps a sign of the changing nature of the Forestry Commission over the past 30 years that the debate that has ensued in the media has almost exclusively ignored the Forestry Commission's role to ensure adequate reserves of growing trees. Instead the debate is about access, recreation and wildlife.

Looking back over the past two centuries is easy to see that the strategic importance of forestry having been recognised, has then waned through changed circumstance. And that's where we are right now. Trees as a crop it seems are of little concern. We sit at the end of a long period of disinterest in plantation forestry.

Yet across the globe, deforestation continues apace. Virgin rainforest is felled to provide a quick buck before the land is converted to agriculture. Biodiversity is being lost at an alarming rate because the managed forestry resource is insufficient to meet the world's growing timber demand. Multinationals and the agencies of sovereign states tour the world acquiring forest resources while we put up the for sale sign.

As a nation we have been here before; if ever there was a time for our Government to retain our forest resources, now is it.

Economics:

It is tempting to think that by selling forestry resources, the Government will get a good deal from the sale. This is unlikely.

Forestry resources are valued on their future cash flows, discounted by the cost of capital. However, since our Government has a lower cost of capital than any of the likely purchasers (excluding the agencies of some other sovereign states), the future cash flow will be worth more to our Government than to the prospective purchaser. In other words the value on sale will represent a loss.

Peanuts:

In 2010 it cost £75 million to run The Forestry Authority. This expenditure was offset by income received by Forest Enterprise of £40 million leaving a net cost of around £35 million. Although the Government has suggested that £20 million per annum could be saved by the sale of English woodland owned by the Forestry Commission, we doubt whether any savings will be achieved.

Woodland sold to the private sector will reduce income received, but there is little certainty that once out of the public sector that this woodland will be any less costly for the Forest Authority to administer. Indeed it is possible that with the numerous new owners to deal with, costs may increase.

On the capital side it has been suggested that the 40,000 ha for sale could realise £250 million. This figure and the annual potential savings of £20 million that the Government suggest need to be seen in the context of Britain's overall financial situation:

Income saved by forestry sale £20,000,000
Gov't Exp. (2012 forecast) £702,000,000,000
Income saved as % Gov't Exp 0.0028%

Forestry sale - capital released £250,000,000
National Debt (2012 forecast) £1,059,000,000,000
Capital released as % of National Debt 0.0236%

As the table above shows, on both an income and capital basis, the benefits to the nation are so tiny as to be barely worth considering. Why sell the nation’s forestry for peanuts?

Farming Future, the project set up to help farmers tackle the effects of climate change has had its Defra funding withdrawn and its own future is now in doubt.

Like many self-justifying organisations in search of funds, Farming Future assumed that farmers would need its help and therefore generated the usual doom and gloom narrative; a future full of threats. Flooding, for example, destroys crops and makes life miserable for farmers.

But does it? Have not millennia of Egyptian civilisation been built on flooding? Are not our most fertile soils alluvial? And what of water meadows! Threat or opportunity – behold it as you will.

Farmers have been responding to change ever since they arrived in the UK over six thousand years ago; Farming Future is high on the list of unhelpful and unnecessary. Like another pointless alliteration, Forward Farming, Farming Future will be best frazzled.

The long dry period affecting much of England is having a significant impact on forage supplies. Grass that was due to be conserved as silage or hay has had to be grazed - winter feed stocks will be under pressure from the outset. Of course farmers can buy in alternative feeds but the costs impact the bottom line; less profit means less tax and that's something the Government could do without.

Governments can't control the weather but in some circumstances they can assist the farming community. One option now available (no cost to the State) is to provide a derogation allowing farmers to utilise grass within environmental schemes that normally would be unavailable. At this stage of the year it's hay or haylage but the window for these operations is drawing to a close.

If Defra want to be helpful, now is the time to act.

Let's suppose;

You see an elderly lady who is trying to cross a busy road; she’s struggling with her stick and a heavy shopping bag. You offer assistance. She accepts, you wave down the traffic and carrying her shopping, get her safely to the other side.

Do you:

A) wish her well and carry on with your day?

B) ask for her National Insurance number, her name and address, provide yours in reciprocity and advise her that your good deed will be notified to the Department of Work and Pensions as part of its campaign for better communities?

Clearly you will choose A), option B) is just daft. Quite apart from the fact that the lady may regard your request for information as intrusive and possibly offensive, the bureaucratic connotations of option B are burdensome and counter-productive.

So what's this got to do with farming?

Well, farming has got its very own case. It's been cooked up by almost everybody in the industry in a spectacular example of GROUP THINK. It's called The Campaign for the Farmed Environment (CFE).