Day 058 - 30 Nov 94 - Page 19
1 Now, as you rightly say, 40 years on and, of course, the
2 First World War period too, since that time, it has been
3 possible, whereas it was not possible before, to remove
4 small areas and replace so that you get a varied effect, a
5 visual effect, and also a mixture of species. That has
6 been the policy now since about 1985 and became very much
7 the policy in the sort of period 88/89. When I first
8 became a Forestry Commissioner this was the only thing we
9 were talking about, was to how over the quickest and
10 shortest period produce a mixture of age and better
11 appearance to the countryside.
12
13 MR. MORRIS: So round about 88/89 the policies that were debated
14 in the mid-80s were being brought into practice in terms of
15 trying to diversify the plantations that existed in this
16 country?
17 A. Yes, Mr. Morris. It was only when trees reached the
18 point of maturity for clear felling in the way we have just
19 earlier been describing, a 40 year cycle, that it was
20 possible to start restructuring. The word "restructuring"
21 then came into the forestry language because from then it
22 was possible to do so.
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Did you tell us when you first became a
25 part-time Forestry Commissioner, Mr. Mallinson?
26 A. I am not certain I put a date to it, but it was, in
27 fact, 1989.
28
29 MR. MORRIS: In your second to last complete paragraph
30 starting: "Successful implementation, within environmental
31 guidelines" -- by the way, the guidelines are not laws, are
32 they?
33 A. The guidelines in this country, as presented by the
34 Forestry Authority, are the basis upon which grants for
35 planting trees and felling licences are given. To the
36 extent that if you do not follow the guidelines, you will
37 not get the grant, they are very effective.
38
39 Q. Then you say in the last sentence: "In general,
40 plantations will be more amenable to silvicultural
41 manipulation than extensive and inaccessible natural forest
42 areas." Presumably, the whole point is that extensive and
43 inaccessible natural forest areas are diverse
44 environmentally; they are not available economically, are
45 they? They are not economically efficient but they are
46 environmentally beneficial?
47 A. They can be, Mr. Morris, I think the distinction -----
48
49 Q. The whole -----
50 A. Can I just add a little bit and that is to say, if one
51 goes into inaccessible areas, they are very often unhealthy
52 or unsuitable for a very wide range of animal and other
53 wild life diversity. So that, you, in fact, have a reduced
54 diversity in areas further north and an increased diversity
55 in areas further south. That applies in Scandinavia; it
56 happens also to apply in this country.
57
58 Q. So, are you arguing against extensive and inaccessible
59 natural forest areas?
60 A. Not at all. I am not arguing against them, I am merely
