MAVE Dissertation,
Lancaster University 2000

A Review of Multiple Benefit Forestry, with Particular Reference to State Owned Forests in Britain

Ben Lennon

A Review of Multiple Benefit Forestry with Particular Reference to State Owned Forests in Britain
B Lennon

Contents	Page No.
Abstract	3
Introduction	4
What is Multiple Benefit Forestry?	5
A Brief History of British Forestry	8
What is the Nature of Multiple Benefit Forestry as a Policy?	11
What are the Benefits that Forests can Deliver?	15
Why Bother with Timber Production in the Post-industrial Forest?	22
Potential for Conflict in the Delivery of Multiple Benefit Forestry	26
Evaluating Options: Approaches to Decision Making in Forest Management	34
Problems with Cost-Benefit Analysis	40
Some Possible Alternatives to Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Use of Surrogate 
Valuation methods	45
Conclusion	53
References	57

MAVE 
Final Dissertation
Academic Year 1999/2000
By B Lennon

A Review of Multiple Benefit Forestry with Particular Reference to State Owned Forests in Britain

Abstract
Multiple benefit forestry is the practice of managing woodlands in order to deliver a variety of benefits to society. Such a policy is a characteristic of a society which has developed a “post-industrial” attitude towards woodlands and forests. Such an attitude arises in the wealthier nations of the world. This paper examines the nature of such a policy and finds that it has a number of inherent problems. A wide range of potential benefits are available from woodlands, but none are prioritised by the policy. This can lead to conflicts over use and expected utility. Hence, the ideal of multiple benefit forestry is frustrated by confusion over conflicting issues arising  from too broad a range of considerability. The nature of these conflicts  are examined, and a range of methods for the determination of management strategies  are discussed. Techniques that prioritise objectives by the aggregation of the preference rankings of individuals, or the creation of notional markets for non-market benefits, are examined and rejected. Deliberation by highly trained and insightful individuals,  followed by informed debate with interested parties, is regarded as the most promising means of determining appropriate management trajectories. Whilst not without its own problems, this  approach allows for the progressive evolution of woodlands as cultural landscapes .

Introduction
Multiple benefit forestry is the practice of managing woodlands in order to deliver a variety of benefits to society. These benefits are wide ranging and may vary depending on the particular objectives of any particular woodland manager, owner, government or society. In the western post-industrial nations these benefits might typically include landscape, amenity and conservation values, alongside those of the more traditional resource and economic values typical of emerging industrial societies.

Multiple benefit forestry has developed considerably in Great Britain over the past three decades with government policy moving ever further away from the idea of forests as a resource for timber and more as a  storehouse of non-market benefits for society and the environment. In particular, amenity, landscape, conservation and community involvement have emerged as foci of attention in the delivery of multiple benefit forestry.

But can or should governments be seeking to deliver such a wide range of benefits from its forests and woodlands? And are they even valid? After centuries of woodland depletion, the forests which we most value as a society today are those that have persisted purely because of their value as a timber resource, or are situated on land unsuitable for agriculture. In trying to manage woodlands for other benefits will we create a resource that can yield manifold values or will we destroy the very aspects of our forests that we most value? Are they being turned into woodland theme parks and caricatures of the great forests of the past that will be rejected by future societies?

With benefits as wide ranging as those listed above it is inevitable that conflicts of interest will occur. In the past such conflicts have driven much of the change in forestry policy. As the public becomes better educated and more environmentally aware calls for more and more reform in forest management are demanded. In England forestry policy is now engendered in the “England Forestry Strategy”. This document lays out the policy for public and private forestry with state owned forests leading the way for private industry. But it remains to be seen whether such a policy commending the universal adoption of  multiple benefit forestry will lead to confused objectives amongst woodland owners resulting in woodlands which yield diverse but diluted benefits. In this paper I will examine the nature of such a policy and argue that it is logically flawed in some of its claims and that there are a number of inherent problems in its nature which lead to conflicts in its delivery. Some of these will inevitably be irreconcilable to all concerned parties.

What is Multiple Benefit Forestry?

Multiple benefit forestry is the management of trees and woodlands in such a way as to yield a wide range of benefits to society. While the notion of multiple benefit forestry has been in development for the majority of this century, it is only during the last thirty or so years that it has become a major driving force  as part of forestry policy among the developed nations of the world. This has largely been brought about by increased wealth and education among the populations of the developed world, realised through a greater amount of leisure time, access from the cities to rural areas and increased environmental awareness.

Greater and greater demands are placed on woodlands and forests from the overtly instrumental to the inherent and aesthetic. The values that can be derived from an individual woodland are many and varied and will very much depend on the character of a particular woodland, its composition and its physical setting. Those woodlands with long histories will have yielded a varying range of benefits to a number of temporally local cultures throughout the centuries; from a source of food, shelter and building materials in the Neolithic period, to the timber resource for ship building and iron smelting throughout the medieval and post medieval period, to the strategic timber reserve of the early-to-mid twentieth century.

So, the idea that forests can and have yielded a wide range of benefits is beyond question, but the concept that they should yield a wide range of benefits simultaneously is a relatively recent idea. This is engendered most notably in the statement of Forest Principles adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992;

	“Forest resources and forest lands should be sustainably managed to meet the social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual human needs of present and future generations” (Principle 2b)

These principles have been adopted by a host of the developed and developing nations of the world and many of whom have started to implement them into forestry policy. In interpretation, of course, the above principles are likely to mean something entirely different in, say, Nepal, than they will in Britain. This is not surprising as the forests and societies of Nepal are very different in character from those of Great Britain and thus the benefits that can be realised or are desirable are hugely different. The term “sustainability” was interpreted with regard to the management of forests in different parts of the world at the 1993 Helsinki summit and was largely based on the Brunholdt formula as being; 

the ability of present  generation to meet its  needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 

These two summits together established the framework for sustainable forestry in Britain. The focus of this paper is on how those forest principles are interpreted in Great Britain and whether the forests of this country can and should yield such a wide range of benefits. 

Forestry policy in Britain is determined by government and executed through the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission is split into two major divisions; the Forestry Authority (now simply known as the Forestry Commission) and Forest Enterprise. Forest Enterprise is responsible for the management of the forest lands that are owned by the nation. The Forestry Commission (previously Forestry Authority) is responsible for the implementation of forestry policy through the development of forestry strategies and the regulation of public and private forestry through the administration of grants and licenses for the management of forests and woodlands. 

The forestry policy for England as laid out in the England Forestry Strategy has two main aims:

“The sustainable management of our existing woods and forests;

and

a continued and steady expansion of our woodland area to provide more benefits to society and our environment”

The objectives of the Forestry Commission are to:

•	protect Britain’s forests and woodlands
•	expand Britain’s forest area
•	enhance their economic value of our forest resources
•	conserve and improve the biodiversity, landscape and cultural heritage of our forests and woodlands
•	develop opportunities for woodland recreation
•	increase public understanding and community participation in forestry

Clearly, these objectives are broad ranging and reflect the principle from the Rio Earth Summit quoted above. These are bold objectives with a strong commitment to maximising the potential benefits that can be delivered from woodlands. I will be returning to these three statements in later sections to examine whether  they are alluding to the same set of values and whether they are mutually compatible.

A Brief History of British Forestry

Before examining in detail the nature of the values that British woodlands can deliver it is important to review the nature and character of the British forest resource. The importance of a review of the changing policies and attitudes towards forests and woodlands will become clear in subsequent sections. All landscapes, including woodlands, are essentially the product of their physical characteristics and the history of their management. British woodlands are by and large highly modified with a long and diverse history. In this respect they are distinct from the new world forests of the Americas and the Antipodes. A brief history of their development is as follows.

Trees and woodlands have been manipulated and exploited as long as man has come into contact with them, either through hunter-gathering activities, simple grazing, or felling trees for fuel and timber. Clearance of woodland for agriculture probably began prior to the Neolithic period and continued throughout the Bronze and Iron ages, by which time clearance was probably at its greatest level.

Despite being predominantly wooded until the onset of clearance for agriculture, by the time of the Domesday book the overall woodland cover for England had been reduced to around 15%. As the population of the country increased and the demand for food grew, this figure fell further to around 5% by 1895. This slow and steady decline raised political concern over the reduction of productive woodland for timber production. From the early 16th Century Britain was becoming a dominant force in politics and the mainstay of its might was derived from its naval prowess. It is estimated to have taken up to  one thousand mature oak trees, utilising all grades of timber, to produce one naval warship, with an optimal life-span of fourteen years. In 1543 the Preservation of Woods Act was passed through Parliament aimed primarily at safeguarding future timber supplies, especially for the navy. At this time the dominant form of silviculture was simple coppice or coppice with standards. The Act stipulated that at least twelve standils  (standard trees) per acre be retained to be grown on following the coppicing of a woodland.

Despite this, and further acts, the forest depletion continued. Consequently Britain became more and more dependant on timber imports both from the empire as well as the Baltic states. It was not until the outbreak of war in 1914 that the high dependency on external timber supplies became fully apparent. By 1916 naval blockades had ensured that imports were reduced to 65% of their pre-war level. Although a shortage of timber was not initially anticipated, one of the major crises came in the form of a dearth of pit props for the collieries which served industry and fuelled the naval warships.

Shortly after the end of the Great War the government established the Forestry Commission in order to promote forestry, establish and manage state forests and encourage private planting. Its main objective was to create a strategic reserve of timber that would provide the country with three years supply of timber in the event of another war. A planting target was set of 715 000 acres of state forests and 1.2 million acres of productive forests by the year 2000. The only major restriction on planting during the inter-war years was that forestry should not compete with agriculture for land. Consequently forestry was pushed onto marginal land largely in the uplands. These lands were suitable for virtually none of the productive broadleaves and so large scale plantings of fast growing exotic conifers began in earnest. This programme of coniferisation was quickly extended to the Semi-natural and ancient woodlands that had initially been cleared in the timber hungry years during and after the wars.

Large scale coniferisation continued throughout the twentieth century particularly in the upland regions but also gradually replacing broadleaved woodlands in the lowlands.  In the latter part of the century the public’s leisure time and environmental awareness gradually grew, forcing a series of changes in forestry policy and eventually leading to a moratorium on extreme upland planting, the destruction of certain habitats, and the coniferisation of broadleaved woodlands. Aesthetic values, access to woodlands, conservation and amenity all gradually became part of the focus on forestry with the Forestry Commission’s remit becoming ever more diverse following a series of Forestry Acts. In 1994 the Secretaries of State, in response to the Rio Earth Summit and the 1993 Helsinki Summit on Sustainable Forestry,  produced a Development Programme for Sustainable Forestry laying out the government’s commitment to a sustainable and multi-purpose forestry ethic. The current multiple benefit policy is engendered in The UK Standard for Forestry and the England Forestry Strategy.

This diversity of forestry policies has resulted in a woodland resource of unique character. The major characteristic types of British woodlands are outlined in Box No.1 below.

Box No.1
Characteristics of the Major Types of Woodlands in Britain
•	Woodlands of a an ancient, semi-natural character, mostly in lowland Britain and the Caledonian pine forests.
•	Woodlands of an ancient, semi-natural character having been felled during the war and post-war periods and subsequently replanted with exotic conifers. Mostly in lowland Britain
•	Upland conifer plantations. Planted on marginal agricultural land, heath or moorland. Mostly date from the 1920s-1970s.
•	New mixed woodlands. Mostly focused on better agricultural land around nationally designated Community Forests.

What is the Nature of Multiple Benefit Forestry as a Policy?
Having  outlined the  history of British forestry and described its current focus on the delivery of a wide range of benefits to society and the environment, I now intend to look in more detail at the inherent problems of such a policy and ascertain whether this approach can be effective. In order to understand something of the problems that might arise in the delivery of such goods it will first be appropriate to identify its nature as a policy, for it is as a policy that it reveals its ultimate goals and objectives. 

Policies are sets of principles put in place by authorities in order to achieve a predetermined set of goals. Public policy is based on the satisfaction of the aggregation of human preferences. Multiple benefit forestry in Britain is one such public policy among many. The key to understanding the nature of such a policy lies in the section from the Forestry Commission’s Mission statement and the Rio Summit principles quoted earlier. The operative phrases that occur in the policy statements are; “benefits to society and the environment”,” sustainable”, and “the needs of present and future generations”. With the exception of the reference to the environment (to which I shall return) these key statements establish the policy as typically utilitarian.

O’Neill describes classic utilitarianism as follows; “the best action is that which maximises total happiness, characterised hedonistically in terms of pleasure and the absence of pain. This view involves no temporal indexing of the pleasures and entails that pleasures should be maximised across generations....by increasing pleasure.”

The authorities promulgating this policy of the provision of multiple benefit forestry, then, recognise the capacity of forests and woodlands to generate happiness or satisfaction to the members of the present society and future societies and it endorses the management strategies which will maximise that satisfaction. Extending from this it would be fair to assume that the members of such societies are possessed of intrinsic value and that the management of woods and forests should be carried out  to serve the ends of those members (ie the value of woodlands is instrumental). The question of whether the woodlands and forests are possessed of intrinsic value is somewhat eclipsed by their value as the instruments of society. Although many individuals do contend that natural objects are possessed of intrinsic value, such an admission would create a paradox for the utilitarian policy of multiple benefit forestry. 

 To clarify this point I shall turn now to a key phrase from the Forestry Commission’s Forestry Briefing for England which identifies its mission as:

“To protect and expand Britain’s forest and woodlands and increase their value to society and the environment.”

I have already established the utilitarian ethic underlying the benefits that may accrue to  society, but what of the other beneficiary of the policy; the environment. At  first glance it appears straight forward in that the environment will be afforded the same level of considerability regarding the benefits of the policy as will society; that the environment has equal status to society and that it may be possessed of the same intrinsic value as society. As there is no caveat to qualify this statement regarding situations of conflict it must be assumed that this is the case. However, it is my contention that this policy is flawed in its capacity to afford the same level of considerability to society and the environment. In the majority of cases of woodland expansion and management that are approved under the auspices of this policy in Britain, benefits will accrue to both society and the environment. However, it is in cases of conflict that the fundamental problems with this policy appear. This problem of conflict between the needs of society and the needs of the environment is not restricted to forestry policy, or indeed to Britain, but run through the whole of government policy throughout the majority of the developed nations of the world that have aspirations to environmentally sound ideals.

I shall illustrate this point with an example. The Wye Valley on the border of Wales and England is regarded as one of the finest landscapes in Britain. It is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Much of its area (including the whole of the River Wye) is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) due its Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland, its rare flora and unique plant assemblages associated with limestone soils. Quarrying for limestone is a well developed industry in the area, and one such quarry is Stowfield Quarry lying to the south of Staunton. The quarry occupies a woodland site of around 50 hectares. Although a large multi-national corporation manage the site and extract the stone, the site, including the mineral rights, are owned by Forest Enterprise. In the late 1990s a further 25 hectare extension was proposed and permission granted to clear the area of woodland occupying the proposed site. In this instance it is difficult to see how the clearance of a woodland to extend a quarry would benefit the environment in any way. 

It would, of course, benefit society in several ways. Primarily, it would provide the mineral resource required to build roads, buildings, lay peoples’ drives, etc; it provides local employment, generates rural development, satisfies the needs of industry and fills the coffers of Forest Enterprise which in turn decreases the burden of multiple benefit forestry to the Treasury and the tax payer. But what benefits to the environment? As a condition of the planning permission there are proposals to restore the site following the removal of the required amount of aggregate. Trees will no doubt be planted and given enough time it will be hard to detect that any disturbance had ever occurred on the site. Furthermore the revenue may be used to create environmental gains elsewhere in the area. However, it is still hard to see how this action constitutes a benefit to the environment. 

Thus, a situation arises in which environmental impoverishment of woodland occurs (albeit temporary) in order to satisfy the needs of human society. Although there may well have been local objection in this particular instance (as there invariably is when aggregate extraction is proposed) it demonstrates that in cases of conflict the environment will suffer at the expense of society’s needs (albeit for the greater good if not the local good). This suggests that value located in the environment is contingent on the valuations of society. Its value, therefore, is instrumental in so  much as it contributes to the fulfilment of the needs of society. When the needs of society dictate that the requirement for X number of tonnes of aggregates supersedes those for the  benefits from 25 hectares of woodland then the benefits accruing to the environment are made subordinate to those of society.

There are two points that need to be made here. The first is that the preceding paragraphs are not put forward as an example of a wrong decision regarding the extension of a quarry. It is merely pointing to the fact that the decision is not consistent with the aims and aspirations of the policy as suggested in the England Forestry Strategy. The second point is that I am not criticising a policy that regards the values of the environment as subordinate to those of society. What I am criticising is the aspiration of the policy to give the environment equal considerability to that of society when this is clearly not achievable in these terms. The environment is and will always be subordinate to the needs and aspirations of society while its value is instrumentally contingent upon society. This environmental ethic conforms to what is widely known as shallow environmentalism; an approach to conservation that identifies the role of the environment in meeting the present and future needs of society.

What are the Benefits that Forests can Deliver?
Clearly there is a major flaw in the assumption that the environment can have equal status and considerability to that of human society. The policy is identified as being typically utilitarian and benefits accruing to the environment are encouraged only insofar as they contribute to human well-being. Nevertheless, environmental and ecological health is a  major component of the overall benefits that can be derived from forests. But benefits realised in the present can have far reaching consequences for future generations even though our current intentions towards those future generations may be favourably directed. I will now examine how these benefits are derived  both historically and at present and what impacts the realisation of forest goods is likely to have on future generations. 

Societies across the world have different types of forests and very different requirements from those forests depending on the nature of the forests themselves, their physical characteristics and the needs of the local  (and sometimes the not-so-local) community. Mather identifies three stages of forest development that exist in relation to the transitional stages of their associated societies. He assesses them in relation to their level of industrialisation and posits that this determines societal attitudes towards forests.

In the pre-industrial phase forests are under communal control and are being used for a variety of purposes such as the production of food, fuel and fodder as well as for timber for low technology industry. Such societies are becoming increasingly few and far between with increasing globalisation, industrialisation, and pressure on natural resources. 

During the industrial phase of development the control of the forest resource moves from the local domain and into the hands of external forces, be they large landowners, absentee landlords, multi-national companies or governments. Decisions on management are wrested from local people as are many of the benefits of management and there is a strong emphasis on the production of timber for industrial usage. In the “classical” industrial forest policy objectives are solely or primarily utilitarian.

In the post-industrial phase society as a whole begins to value and benefit from the forest resources as opposed to individual owners or governments. The forest may be viewed as being possessed of intrinsic value in terms of landscape and wildlife, as well as offering opportunities for recreation and it is increasingly seen as containing a wealth of actually or potentially valuable products and organisms.

Whether all societies have to follow this pattern remains to be seen, and over what period. Certainly all of the major developed nations have passed through these phases with varying degrees of rapidity. In Britain the transition from pre-industrial to industrial took approximately 500 years, whereas in the US and Canada it took less than 200. The societal attitude of the post-industrial forest is only enabled when certain conditions have been fulfilled. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) among the post-industrial nations is generally high with the associated high living standards of the populace. Demands for industrial timber are usually satisfied either by domestic  production ( as in the case of the US) or by high levels of imports (as in the case of Britain), but there is little external pressure to increase the industrial exploitation of the forest resource for export in order to reduce the import deficit (as is the case of many developing countries). In other words, the developed nations can afford to develop their attitudes to forests beyond their capacity to deliver economic benefits. Perhaps only over the last thirty years have the conditions been sufficient in what we refer to as the developed nations to allow the emergence of the attitudes associated with the post-industrial forest in the west. On the cusp of the 21st Century the focus in the developed nations is very much on the delivery of non-market benefits to society. However, in the view of Kennedy, the fact that “social forestry” had to be invented in order to emphasise the broad and varied social needs of society is an indictment of the narrow value focus of “traditional” forestry and its close association with timber production and timber prices. 

Mather’s contention is that as the societal attitude towards forests changes from the industrial to the post-industrial, the view of the forest as an instrumental resource gives way to the assignation of intrinsic values. But as we have seen this has not been the case so far. It is still very much a utilitarian policy that permits such seemingly benevolent attitudes towards forests to exist. Forests and woodlands are still very much regarded as a resource (although perhaps not overtly), it is merely the type of benefits that have changed. Forests still serve society in the way that they always have, but the goods that are now realised are often less conspicuous and tangible than those of the past.

Benefits from forests can be derived in a variety of different ways, and the ways in which they are derived will have a greater or lesser effect on the forests themselves and on their capacity to deliver the same benefit in the future or their potential to deliver other types of benefit.  Mather uses the terms “consumptive” and non-consumptive” to differentiate between the characteristics of the main types of usage. 

Consumptive (or productive) functions are perhaps the most readily obvious. These are characterised by the physical consumption or removal of goods or benefits from the woodland environment and arise as a result of production or growth processes. These are most usually timber (for industrial or local use, fuel, etc), food and some forms of sport (hunting which necessitates the removal of life-forms from an ecosystem). Non-consumptive benefits are those that do not necessitate the physical removal of goods from the forest environment (these may also be termed non-productive) and are likely to include landscape, recreation and amenity, conservation, soil protection, carbon sequestration, climate control, and water quality control. Clearly, consumptive benefits will have a marked effect on the physical nature and characteristics of the woodland environment whereas the non-consumptive, according to Mather at least, will not.

The benefits derived from forests are variously described in similar terms as that of Mather depending on  their commercial and non-commercial aspects, their marketability or their type of utility to society and/or the environment. The productive or commercial functions of forests are generally paramount during the industrial phase of development and the non-consumptive only gain currency as the post-industrial awareness develops. This is not to say that these functions are absent during the industrial phase, but that their value to society increases as that of the consumptive or productive  functions decreases. This suggests that in terms of values the benefits that accrue to society can fluctuate over time. This is not to say that the benefits themselves alter (although they may well do according to generational changes in management) but that their value to society fluctuates. 

This leads us to one of the major problems with the management of woods and forest in order to fulfil the “needs of present and future generations”. It is also often regarded as one of the problems with utilitarian attitudes towards the environment. Although we may be able to determine what our present needs are regarding forests and other environmental resources, how can we determine what future requirements might be? It is not unusual for each human generation to declare itself as more enlightened than its predecessors and to identify the wrongs of the past, whether it be moral judgement, environmental attitudes or social injustice. Each generation makes judgements on what the requirements of the future might be in terms of needs and resources. Similarly, each generation no doubt believes it has left the world (if not necessarily the environment) in a better state than it found it.

To illustrate this point better I will use examples of British forestry policy from the last 200 years (although misconceptions of this kind date back to time immemorial). In the early 19th Century the British Royal Navy was becoming increasingly concerned about the apparent scarcity of timber for the construction of warships. At the time Britain was at the pinnacle of its naval power and truly ruled the waves. It was estimated to have taken the timber of 1000 mature oak trees to construct and furnish one warship with an expected life-span of around fourteen years. In 1810 the Commissioners of Woods and Forests calculated that it would required 100 000 acres of productive oak woodland in order to provide the Royal Navy with a regular supply of timber based on the assumption that 1000 acres of oak at a100 years of age would constitute one years supply. At this time the Crown owned 115000 acres of woodland in total, a large proportion of which existed in the southern royal forest of the Dean and the New Forest. Steps were put in place protect this precious resource against the growing pressures of the surrounding industrial revolution.

And yet, the first iron-clad ships that appeared in the middle of the 19th Century signalled the end of the great wooden warships. In 1862, during the early days of the American Civil War, a brief naval encounter saw the iron-clad ship Merrimac despatch two wooden warships whose guns were ineffective against the iron exterior. By the time the news of this encounter reached the British admiralty two months later, it had become obvious that if Great Britain were to maintain its naval superiority it would need to convert its navy to iron ships. The steps for the preservation of the naval timber resource put in place just fifty years earlier were virtually redundant

The second case comes from the present century and begins with the end of the First World War, at which point the Forestry Commission was established in order to create a strategic reserve of timber. The forests that it would establish would provide three years supply of timber to industry in the event of naval blockades on timber supply ships during another European war. Initially this policy appeared to be vindicated as, less than twenty years later, another European war broke out and many of the forests that had been established in the 1920s were put under the saw. However, that same policy of strategic reserve was continued after the end of the Second World War and, through the creation of state owned forests, subsidies and tax incentives to private owners, continued  well into the 1980s. But by the middle of the 1960s, political incidents such as the Bay of Pigs crisis had already made it abundantly clear to the vast majority  of governments that any future war would not be fought using conventional weapons but with nuclear arms. As with the example of iron-clad ships, technology had superseded the predicted requirements for the resource. Sanctions on the import of food or timber could still have a dramatic effect on the quality of life in a country such as Britain, of course, but industries that traditionally relied heavily on timber have largely diminished. 

The point that stands out clearly from these  two examples is not one of changing technology but that predictions regarding the requirements of future generations can be wildly inaccurate. So the forests that have been created over the last 80 years bear the characteristics of industrial forests established in order to fulfil the requirements of society at the time of establishment. Over the last thirty years demands on forests have changed again and many woodlands are being transformed to fulfil the requirements of the present society and what the government perceives to be the needs of future generations. As these two cases illustrate the future is a great unknown; we cannot with any certainty anticipate what the requirements of the future generations will be. This is not to say that the needs of future generations should not be taken into account because we are not sure what their requirements will be, but that it creates a dilemma that is more complex than it first appears.

Duties to future generations have been widely discussed and it is outside the focus of this paper to venture into any degree of detail regarding their merits or otherwise. Social discounting of costs and benefits accruing to future generations has been strongly promoted as a means of approaching these problems, and has equally strongly been rejected. It is sufficient to say that the present policy of multiple benefit forestry identifies future generations as deserving the same range of benefits as the present generation enjoys. But as we have already identified, this may not be what fulfils the needs of future generations. We cannot even say with any certainty at the present time what constitutes sustainability as it as those elements of the environment that are sustained in some form or other which may be perpetuated at the expense of others. This introduces the concept of the distribution of sustainability.

	“ The invocation of “sustainability” as a reference concept does not guarantee the conservation of specified productive or reproductive potentialities of any particular society or ecosystem.....Thus we can develop the idea of human actions, and policy choices more particularly, as involving decisions about the distribution of sustainability; which interests and forms of life will be sustained”

Because of the long rotations involved in forestry it is impossible to make assumptions on what the requirements of future generations will be. The further into the future we try to look, the more uncertain our predictions will become. as we have seen in our two example. It is not inconceivable that certain policies now considered unfashionable or unacceptable will once again gain currency and that the present generation will be castigated for overwriting previous policies. 

Forestry and the management of woodlands is a unique activity in that it is based on inter-generational trust and the continuity of a sense of stewardship (in this sense I am referring to the husbandry of woods and forests rather than the purely economic exploitation of trees). Successive generations of woodland owners and managers inherit woodlands, fulfil their needs and aspirations, perhaps by felling certain areas of trees and planting more trees, the benefits of which will never be realised by that generation, nor perhaps the next. Of course, this management is consolidated to a degree by Government legislation but it demonstrates the fact that future generations are not the strangers that many philosophers seem to think. There is an unbroken continuity between successive generations which enables decisions to be made that can at least fulfil the aspirations of immediate followers. This continuity is also evident in the long timescales on which woodland management operates. While examples have been given of policies being superseded by technology, these particular instances occur in the industrial societal phase in which power and possession play pivotal roles. There are many examples of woodland management from across Europe where woodlands have developed outwith the ravishes of industrial phase policies and have consequently made the transition from meeting the needs of the pre-industrial society to meeting those of the post-industrial society without rapid change.  

This suggests that it may be the industrial phase of forest development that artificially interrupts the flow of sustainable forest goods from past to future generations. Those societal requirements of forests in the pre and post-industrial phases may be more compatible than may immediately be apparent. For example, those lowland woodlands in England that escaped the coniferisation of the post-war period are much more able to fulfil the aspirations of the present generation than those that were heavily coniferised. Although the actual benefits realised by the pre and post-industrial societies may have been widely divergent, the character of the woodlands fulfils the needs of both.

Why Bother with Timber Production in the Post-industrial Forest ? 

We have seen that much of the potential for conflict in societal attitudes towards forests arises through the divergence of attitudes between different groups of society for the use of forest resources, be they consumptive or otherwise. In countries such as Britain, with the second lowest area of forest cover in Europe , the likelihood of ever being able to meet our own consumptive needs of timber is minimal. With so many pressures for non-consumptive benefits being placed on the post-industrial forest, it begs the question; why even bother trying to produce timber from British woodlands at all? Many regard it as perfectly legitimate that British woodlands should be put aside to deliver conservation, recreational and aesthetic benefits to society. It is, after all, society that has paid for the creation of these  woodlands in the first place through the work of the Forestry Commission; it is only proper that society should derive the maximum utility through access, conservation and aesthetic values and not have the  inconvenience of industrial timber producing activities imposed upon it.

The response to this question has four strands that each play a contributory part in the case for timber production in British forests ;

•	Economics
•	Sustainability
•	Conservation
•	Cultural heritage

Economics
Britain’s consumption of timber (usually measured in Wood Raw Material Equivalent - WRME) currently stands at around 70 million m3 per annum. Of this approximately 85% is imported from various countries around the world at a cost of some £8 billion.The consumption of timber products has been forecast to rise over the coming decades, with the majority of this requirement being for softwood timber for uses such as construction, panelling, newsprint, packaging and fibreboard. Approximately 19 000 people are directly involved in productive forestry and wood -processing industries in Britain. There are still further opportunities to expand the production of timber thereby reducing the import deficit and adding to rural employment. Despite this growing consumption (currently around 1 tonne per capita per annum) the cutting down of trees is often displeasing to the general public.

Sustainability
Woodlands and forests  are one of the few resources that can be truly regarded as sustainable. By this I mean that they have the capacity to fulfil a range of functions while maintaining their productive capacity even when certain of their constituent parts are removed (trees). Despite media publicity to the contrary, forests are in fact robust ecosystems that have a long history of continuity and interaction with humanity. They are, of course, sensitive to certain pressures, but these notwithstanding, forests can be managed for timber production (amongst other things) in perpetuity without compromising the capacity of the forest to regenerate itself. That is not to say that all forms of management achieve this, but that sustainable methods are possible and not technically difficult.

This makes timber a sustainable as well as a versatile product that has traditionally been used for a wide range of uses. The same cannot be said for any of the alternative materials that are commonly used for, say, building materials (mostly minerals such as steel, stone aggregates, plastics and oil-based derivatives). Therefore, from the point of view of sustainability, the use of timber (from sustainably managed woodlands) should be positively encouraged in Britain and elsewhere.

Conservation
The growing consumption of timber based products in Britain will largely be met by foreign imports. This means that other countries are having to produce timber from their own forests in order to meet the demand to satisfy our preferences for timber based products. If we do not contribute to our own consumption of timber we effectively put pressure on forest resources in other parts of the world. This may, in some cases, lead to unscrupulous acts of forest depletion as it has widely in the past. By contributing to our own consumption we can help to ease the pressure on forest resources in other countries.

Of course, the recycling of paper and other timber based products can help to reduce the overall consumption of timber but an element of new fibre is invariably required to assist the strength properties of recycled material.

Cultural heritage
There is a long tradition of woodland management for timber in Britain. Much of the development of the last thousand years has been enabled by a relatively small woodland resource. The old woodlands that we value today have been managed in the past with a strong emphasis on timber production for fuel, shelter, ship building, etc. Past management has resulted in woodlands of a distinct character that yield a wide range of aesthetic and conservation benefits. If timber production were to cease entirely many of these distinct characteristics would disappear. We have seen many of these woodlands lose just these characteristics with the coniferisation of native broadleaved woodlands in the latter half of the 20th Century.  These losses are not due to timber production itself, but to a change in practice.

People want to see open, well managed woodlands with big trees and diverse flora. These conditions are largely a by-product of management techniques that provide timber. Contrary to public opinion, if timber was not produced then this would not mean that trees would needn’t be cut down. It means that trees would be cut down in order to provide many of the positive benefits that forestry practices deliver, but at a financial cost to the public instead of a return. 

Even conservation benefits in new conifer woodlands can be reliant on timber production. For example, Stockhill Wood on the Mendip Hills is a 200 hectare conifer plantation established in the 1940s. Originally an even-aged plantation it is now being restructured to create a mosaic of different age classes of trees and a sustained flow of timber. Since this practise began, the creation of temporary open space as areas were clearfelled, has created a continuous stream of nesting and feeding habitats for long-eared owls and nightjar. Both these species are locally scarce and do not nest or feed in any of the surrounding agricultural land or broadleaved woodland. Both species are reliant on ephemeral open ground due to the succession of the vegetation which becomes unsuitable for use after several years. Without this conifer woodland and the succession of clearfell sites neither of these species would be able to sustain a  viable population here.

Potential for Conflict in the Delivery of Multiple Benefit Forestry
So far I have identified some of the problems inherent in subscribing to the wide ranging utilitarian policy of multiple benefit forestry. Problems of trying to identify the recipients of forests goods, of providing a range of consumptive and non-consumptive goods in a changing society, and of identifying the needs of future generations. I have argued a case for the continuation and expansion of timber production in principle although not necessarily the universal application of industrial practices. With a wide range of potential benefits to be delivered and given the diversity of preferences amongst the individual members of society, there is much room for conflict regarding which benefits should (or could) be delivered at any one time. I shall now examine in more detail the nature of these conflicts before discussing the range of possible means by which they might be resolved.

We have seen earlier that the main aim of a multiple benefit forestry policy is to deliver a range of benefits to society and to the environment insofar as it is valued by society. It also seeks to enable future generations to access the same range of benefits as that of the present and temporally local generations (ie. our immediate successors). It is not uncommon for accounts of the benefits of forests and woodlands to be divided into categories such as those which Mather employs (consumptive and non-consumptive). The categories most commonly applied in Britain are those of market and non-market values. The market values are those (often consumptive) values that can be realised in the market place and are relatively simple to value (most commonly in monetary units). The non-market values have traditionally been more problematic and a variety of models have been invented to deal with assigning markets and market values to these benefits (some of these will be reviewed in the next section). In recent years, since the emergence of the multiple benefit remit, the focus has been very much on how to increase the non-market benefits of woodlands and forests, ideally without incurring a penalty on the marketable benefits (typically timber revenues). Because of the overall nature and characteristics of modern forestry in Britain (largely coniferous, even-aged monocultures) industrial production in forests has been regarded as a major factor inhibiting the delivery of non-market benefits.

However, this may not necessary always be the case. By and large models that try to create markets for non-market benefits assume that those benefits are at odds with the consumptive benefits. Although non-market benefits may not be consumptive in the physical sense I will argue the case that the realisation of one benefit (consumptive or non-consumptive) may well inhibit the ability of an area of woodland to deliver other benefits. 

Conflicts in the management of woodlands occur for a variety of reasons. The common factor is that they inevitably occur when there is a disagreement between the perception of one group or individual with that of another group or individual. It is important to note that ethical conflicts regarding the appropriate use of environmental entities do not occur outside the realm of human experience. Perhaps one of the greatest challenges for woodland mangers at the beginning of the 21st Century is how to reconcile the conflicts that arise from multiple benefit forestry.

Conflicts in the management of woodlands in Britain commonly occur in three distinct forms;

•	Conceptual conflicts.
Conflicts in which two or more benefits preclude the realisation of one another.
•	Dynamic conflicts.
Conflicts which occur as a result of change and its pace.
•	Consequential conflicts
Conflicts that arise as a result of the inability to accept the inevitability of the consequences of one course of action over another.

Conceptual Conflict
Conceptual conflicts arises when the expected utility of an area of woodland exceeds the potential of that woodland to satisfy the demands that are made upon it. Situations often arise in woodland management in which the elements that constitute the realisation of one benefit prohibit the realisation of the elements that constitute those of the other benefit. For example, some archaeological remains are sensitive to damage by tree roots. On sites where highly sensitive archaeological remains are extant, those remains may well be damaged by any trees that are planted on that site. Therefore the benefit of having trees, for whatever reason, is incompatible with the benefits of conserving the archaeological remains. Some accounting systems incorporate the cost of foregoing certain opportunities in order to evaluate different scenarios and calculate potential losses in revenue or other non-market benefits. This type of conflict is distinct from what I refer to as consequential conflict which arises from either technical incompatibility of use or conceptual paradox. Conceptual conflict on the other hand arises from benefits or uses that are both possible on any one site and viable, but not mutually compatible. 
Conflicts of this type can occur on a number of levels. Policy will often offer protective rights to certain environmental features, such as ancient semi-natural woodland, water features, archaeology, etc. These legal edicts may well be at odds on one site. Policy may be at odds with certain pressure groups whose agendas are not consistent with government or authority policy regarding the management of a site (eg. typical rural issues include housing expansion, transport networks, quarrying, etc). Interest groups may be at odds with each other over land use issues. For example mountain bikers, horse riders and walkers have often come into conflict with each other through overuse of an area and an unwillingness to accept the rights of access of other users.
Conceptual conflict can also occur at the individual level. Individuals will often take exception to local initiatives and management decisions, regional strategies or the execution of government policy. It is perhaps at the level of the individual, or small group, that the majority of conflict and dissatisfaction is most likely to occur. Policies may well be derived from the aggregated preferences of individual preference rankings but this is no guarantee that any one individual should be in the least bit satisfied with the outcome or direction of that policy. Utilitarian public policies by their very nature seek to broadly satisfy as wide a number of individuals as possible. Due to the diversity in preference rankings of the individuals for whom the policy is constructed, it is unlikely that many individuals will be entirely satisfied

Dynamic Conflict
Dynamic conflict arises as a resistance to the process of change. This largely takes place at the individual or small group level and is closely related in some respects to consequential conflict. Change is a natural process that occurs in the environment over time. Even in the natural world perceived rates of change vary dramatically from the devastating changes characterised by hurricanes or tornadoes to the slow processes of geological change. Human cultural landscapes also change over time to different degrees. Agricultural landscapes change dramatically with the seasons, but these changes have been incorporated into the farming culture and are hardly even noticed by the general public. Forests, on the other hand, are perceived by many members of the public to be static entities. To those that walk in them or use them everyday change is slowed to such an extent that it is barely perceived outside of the seasonal cycle of change. Spring brings with it the flowers and the greenery  and Autumn its glorious colour, but the growth and dynamism of trees is barely perceived. 
The rate of change, then, can have a marked effect on the perception and emotions of individuals. Those rates of change that are the most dramatic, are likely to be those that evoke the greatest contention particularly when it is at odds with what is perceived to be the natural rate of change. Obvious examples are those of felling trees which may have taken decades, or even centuries, to grow. Others include influxes of visitors to areas that have been traditionally remote or undisturbed. But even when there is a net gain to either the environment or community, the rate of change can still be difficult to come to terms with. The removal of  damaging or invasive forms of vegetation from archaeological or ecologically sensitive sites can invoke a strong negative response. 
Change itself often carries a negative connotation, irrespective of the reasons that have initiated it. Change brings with it a sense of uncertainty about the future as opposed to the stability and comfort of inertia. In this way the large majority of individuals would sooner keep the woodland or forest exactly as they perceive it to be even if this means that the slow rate of natural change erodes the values that they found attractive in the first instance.

Consequential (Logical) Conflict
Consequential conflict refers to those conflicts that arise from an inability to comprehend or accept the consequences of a conceptually accepted course of action. This type of conflict highlights the disparity between the realm of the hypothetical concept and that of reality. It also illustrates one of the major flaws in surrogate valuation methods which will be discussed in more detail in the next section. Conflicts arise when policies or concepts are subscribed to by individuals but the consequences are unacceptable to them. Often, this manifests itself as a form of NIMBYism (Not-In-My-Back-Yard). Alternatively, the methods by which certain outcomes are to be realised can be very unpalatable. The conflict may arise as a resistance to unforeseen, or too rapid a change in the environment, or an incurred negative impact. The reasons for these unforeseen circumstances may vary. They may spring from mis-information, to the incoherence of promulgated strategies on the part of the forest manager.
A typical example might involve the landscape. Many of Britain’s forests established over the last fifty years typically consist of large rectangular blocks of  conifers which are widely regarded as unsympathetic to the landform. Forest managers may well be criticised for cutting down  trees in order to rectify these landscape anomalies. But the change in the landscape cannot take place without the removal of trees. Another example is that of individuals who wish to see new and existing woodlands well stocked with trees but do not wish to see damaging forms of wildlife culled in order to achieve this. Nor do they wish to see obtrusive fencing. In such a way the potential  inconvenience, or social cost,  inherent in the realisation of a woodland visit or the improvement of a landscape is translocated or denied.

Layers of Conflict
In order to illustrate how different types of conflict can arise in the management of a woodland, I shall draw on an example from the Forest of Dean. Welshbury Wood is a woodland of around 50 hectares occupying a hill to the north west of the village of Littledean. The woodland consists mostly of mature broadleaved trees with some conifers dating from the 1960s on the western slopes. Welshbury has a long history of human intervention. The majority of the hilltop is occupied by an Iron age hill fort; a scheduled monument and one of the best preserved examples of its kind in the country. The ramparts of the hill fort are well defined and are highly valued by local residents for their fine aesthetic appearance. For many centuries the woodland was in the ownership of the nearby Flaxley Abbey, which was destroyed during the dissolution of the monasteries in the 1530s. 

The majority of the hill fort site is now covered in small leaved lime trees. Historically these have been managed on a coppice system and some of the coppice stools are very ancient. DNA analysis has shown that there are a number of distinct clonal varieties occurring in large groups across the site. This indicates that the coppice stools, although split up and grown apart, actually form part of individual plants, and are thus of a very venerable age. Debate rages over whether the lime woodland pre-dates the hillfort or vice versa. Small-leaved lime is regarded as an indicator of ancient woodland as it reproduces slowly, is not normally found outside the woodland environment, and does not have the capacity to form secondary woodland. Hence, the Welshbury Woods are regarded as being highly important in ecological terms.

The woodland is well visited by local people, but less so by the wider public due to lack of publicity and car parking provision. Certain members of the local populace are highly informed and articulate, and have formed a small pressure group in order to safeguard the interests of the woodland (and others in the vicinity) and influence decisions regarding future management. Both the limewoods and the Iron age hillfort are highly valued for their unique sense of place.

So, there are three important factors influencing the future management of Welshbury Woods; archaeology, conservation, and social well-being (amenity). Timber production from this area has been identified as being of minor importance in relation to the other objectives. As the woodland appears today, all three objectives appear to be largely satisfied. However, problems are beginning to occur. A characteristic of lime trees is that rather than dying on their feet, as do oak, they tend to rot in the root and then crash to the ground, from whence they regenerate. As they fall over, they will inevitably take with them a large portion of the various soils horizons which their roots have penetrated over the years. From an archaeological perspective this is less than satisfactory as, over the years, the ground archaeology will become more and more disturbed and less distinct. So, archaeologists would rather see either the trees removed completely, thinned out to reduce the possibility of windthrow, or coppiced. Even if one of these options were selected, there are still the technical difficulties of felling and removing trees from the site without disturbing the archaeological remains.

The ecologists have a different perspective. It is the native lime trees that are of interest to them. For them the removal of the trees completely is simply not an option. The thinning out of certain trees would favour some clonal varieties and result in the elimination of others which would reduce the overall genetic diversity of the site. Coppicing is the traditional form of management and is regarded by the ecologists as the best way of safeguarding the genetic integrity of the site.

The local populace would rather keep the woodland as it is without any changes whatsoever. They enjoy seeing the large lime trees with a sparse ground cover that enables the interesting earthworks to be seen to their full effect. From their perspective no trees should be felled at all, but thinning at least would allow the trees to grow larger without reducing the visibility of the hill fort. Coppicing would effectively mean the clearance of trees from the site, albeit in small groups. The cleared area would quickly regrow, but the resultant flush of rich ground vegetation would obscure the earthworks for many years. This would be undesirable to the local community.

So, we find that their are a range of highly conflicting objectives for this woodland. At any time, two of these objectives could be satisfied in the formulation of a management plan for the future. But at no time could all three objectives be satisfied simultaneously. In this example we can see all three different types of conflict at work. Primarily, there is the obvious conceptual conflict. All three factions want to derive different benefits from a site which can deliver all three benefits, but not necessarily at the same time. The conflict has been exacerbated because for a short while during the long history of this woodland, all three objectives were satisfied simultaneously. It is hard, then, for individuals to realise why these conditions cannot be perpetuated.

Dynamic conflict occurs for the community and the archaeologists. They want the site to remain as it is, but are faced with the prospect of change. The community wants the same benefits as both the archaeologists and the ecologists, but the means by which both the archaeologists and the ecologists can be satisfied (through coppicing) is unacceptable to them because of the dynamic nature of the change.

Finally, there is the consequential or logical conflict. The community is unable to accept that by doing nothing in this woodland, one of the very things that they presently value, the hill fort, will be eventually destroyed by gradual uprooting of lime trees. Furthermore, the site will become more inaccessible, and the hill fort less visible as more and more trees collapse. This site has been preserved in its current condition through a high level of human intervention which largely goes unrecognised.

So what  course of action is to be taken? The woodland manager is trying to find a course of action that will maximise utility. In a typical utilitarian scenario, the wishes of the local community would be over-ridden by the national importance of the archaeological remains and the lime woods. Furthermore, no course of action so far put forward can satisfy the wishes of the community, nor will nature allow it to be satisfied. 

Evaluating Options: Approaches to Decision Making in Forest Management
As we have seen from the example above, there is much room for conflict in the management of state owned and private forests, not only in Britain but across all the nations that subscribe to a multiple benefit policy. The utilitarian policy that we have identified leaves no room for the rights and preferences of local communities; only for the good of the greater population. The potential for conflict is likely to increase rather than decrease as more input and comment on management strategies is offered to individuals and communities. In July 2000 Elliot Morley, Forestry Minister for England, released press statements calling for a greater move towards community involvement in the formulation of management strategies for Britain’s forests and woodlands. These statements supported the launch of the Forest Enterprise document, “Forests for People: Working with Communities”. According to the Forestry Minister “communities now have a cast-iron pledge from Forest Enterprise that they will have an even greater say in how their local forests are shaped in the future. This is a ground-breaking announcement which demonstrates the Government’s commitment to making community involvement a priority”. 
So how should the woodland manager formulate management strategies to satisfy the wide range of demands on woodlands? In this section I shall be reviewing how multiple benefit forestry is encouraged in Britain, before going on to  assess some of the decision making options commonly available, and discussing some of the potential problems. I will then argue that the use of typical utilitarian methods of monetary valuations are inadequate in the formulation of management strategies. Despite being contrary to the standard utilitarian principle, I will argue that the deliberative judgements of individuals, guided by the views of interested parties, can be far more effective in the delivery of multiple benefit policy than can utilitarian techniques.
The management of woods and forests in Britain is administered by the authority arm of the Forestry Commission. This branch of the organisation is the regulatory body that oversees the administration of grants and licenses that enables the legal felling of trees. The Forestry Commission cannot enforce the wider use of forests directly, but through the judicious administration of grants and licenses system can encourage multiple benefit forestry including public access, landscape values and conservation. This is currently carried out under the auspices of the Woodland Grant Scheme(WGS). The WGS is the vehicle by which the administration of funds to encourage woodland management is administered. It provides funding for the planting of trees (and restocking following felling) with associated enhancements for planting specified tree types in preferred areas (eg. Scots pine and certain broadleaves in the Native pinewoods areas of Scotland attract an enhanced rate). Although the Forestry Commission has no direct control on the planting of trees, which exists outside the planning system, it does control the felling (and consequently the replanting) of trees. The criterion currently used for the administration of grants and licenses is how well the application contributes to the territorial forestry strategy (England is presently the only territory with a published forestry strategy). The implication of this is that the grants and license system is the control mechanism by which the government will deliver multiple benefit forestry. 
For Forest Enterprise, local woodland strategies for management are carried out through Forest Design Plans (FDPs). These FDPs lay out the long term objectives of management over a 25-30 year period and are reviewed in the light of efficacy and changes in policy on a five year basis. These plans are commented on by a broad range of consultees. The plans are approved by the Forestry Commission and are, again, measured against their ability to contribute to the aspirations of the territorial forestry strategy.
With such a wide range of potential opportunities available for delivery from woodlands and forests it is not always straight forward for the woodland manager to judge which benefits should be encouraged and which should not (as we have seen in our example of Welshbury Woods). As all individuals and user groups are potential beneficiaries of the multiple benefit policy, each has an equal share to the benefits of the forest. However, as we have already established, use for one purpose may well exclude use for another. This may effectively lead to alienation and disenfranchisement of certain groups with minority interests in the potentialities of the forest environment.
Furthermore, due to the industrialised and productive excesses of the past, forest managers are, in some communities, viewed with suspicion. This view is not restricted to Britain but has been a problem for the majority of forest industries emerging from the industrial phase. During the construction of the Multi-purpose Forestry Act in the United States one of the fundamental points of criticism was that foresters were competent to identify resource problems and propose possible solutions, but not to choose between uses. The interests of foresters are deemed to lie in the production of timber, and the reconciliation of non-market benefits is a sweetener for the general public to allow them to continue with their productive aspirations. It seems, then, that forest managers are regarded with suspicion in a number of post-industrial countries. But are these charges valid in Britain (or anywhere else), or is conflict between market and non-market benefits actually perpetuated by the nature of the evaluative methods employed in environmental decision making? 
I shall turn now to look at some of the techniques commonly employed in environmental decision making in Britain and examine whether these methods are effective or appropriate. One of the greatest challenges to the woodland manager, or indeed the policy maker, is assigning objective values to what are essentially subjectively perceived benefits in order to assess what courses of action may constitute the greatest benefit to society. “Repeatedly in recent years, surrogate valuation methods of various kinds (particularly the contingent valuation and travel cost methods, with their associated idioms) have been held up as having the potential to give a greater degree of objectivity to environmental values - in the process reducing political controversy by underwriting and representing environmental goods neutrally”.
Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is one of the most widely adopted forms of environmental and social decision-making tools. This technique is typically utilitarian in that it aggregates specific costs in comparison to aggregated benefits in order to ascertain that course of action which maximises utility. “Each alternative course of action is evaluated according to the ratio of its costs to its benefits, rendered commensurable, most commonly, through monetary equivalents. The option which “maximises happiness”, in the modern sense of having the highest cost-benefit ratio, is recommended. CBA  is most commonly employed as a determinant strategy in cases of conflict between options of profit and loss. The question posed by the employment of the CBA is; do the benefits of this actions outweigh those of the losses? 
“Cost-benefit analysis is introduced to resolve problems that arise from the departure of real markets from “ideal” conditions”. This is to say that the benefits of a course of action will be realised on a different cardinal scale to those benefits which are foregone, and are contingent on the aggregated preference rankings and subjective valuations of individuals. The primary problem occurs not in the realisation of the potential forest benefits (which are essentially identified in the policy) but in the capture and comparison of their values. As either the benefits or costs of a particular course of action are realised in monetary terms, it is usual for monetary values to be used as the common currency for evaluative purposes. Furthermore monetary values are often considered (by economists at least) to constitute an index of individuals’ preferences for one form of benefit over another.  
The problem of assigning monetary value to non-market benefits has been one that has received much attention from economists. The Forestry Commission itself has struggled for many years in trying to assign objective values to a range of non-market benefits in order to assist in the determinant strategy of CBA. In 1993 it published its report on the valuation of Biodiversity which highlighted some of the problems regarding the valuation of such benefits: 
	“The Forestry Commission is committed to increasing biodiversity in forests, but faces the crucial question of how much? Valuation of biodiversity in theory presents a tool for such trade-offs, permitting the Commission to assess at the margin the balance between managing forests for timber production, biodiversity and other forestry values. Economic analysis assists in the allocation of scarce resources, allowing for the trade off between say 5 units of A for 6 units of B, within the overall objective of maximising society’s welfare”
There are a number of methods commonly employed in deriving monetary values or the preferences of individuals and other non-market benefits. These are broadly termed as surrogate valuation methods. A brief account of those most commonly used is given below.
Contingent Valuation Method comprises valuations derived from the willingness of individuals to pay for goods or services or to establish the amount of compensation that would be required to satisfy the individual’s preference for foregoing that benefit (eg. a nearby woodland). This method most commonly involves aggregating the responses of an individual to a series of questions relating to the benefits of a particular issue.
Box No. 2
Examples of Market & Non-Market Benefits in Woodlands and Forests
Market Benefits	Non-Market Benefits	

Timber and wood based products
Sporting
Game (eg. venison sales)
Commercial recreation
Tourism

	
Conservation/ biodiversity
Informal recreation
Landscape
Climate control
Carbon sequestration
Archaeology
Water catchment & filtration
Soil protection
Education
Employment	

Hedonic Price Method seeks to establish the link between the benefits of living close, or having easy access, to a particular benefit (eg. proximity to a woodland). This typically analyses the effects of, say, a woodland on the effects of house prices in a particular area compared with house prices in a similar area without visual or physical access to the same resource.
Travel Cost Method establishes a link between the willingness of individuals to pay for the use of a resource (eg. a woodland) via the distance that they are prepared to travel in order to enjoy the benefits of that resource. The distance travelled is then related to a cost/distance index which provides the value of the expenditure of that individual in getting to the site.
These are by no means the only methods used to capture monetary values  based on preferences but provide a flavour of the types of systems used, and will be used as the basis for arguments against this type of approach to decision making in woodland management.

Problems with Cost-Benefit Analysis
Although CBA has gained currency in policy and land management decision making in many parts of the world, I believe that it is fundamentally flawed in many of its assumptions and in its methodology.
Firstly, CBA does not take into account the distribution of benefits or losses, nor the intensity that individuals may feel regarding the loss or gain of particular benefits, other than through the aggregations of notional revenues. Distributions of the gains and losses will, as is characteristic of utilitarian policies, be widely  spread without necessarily taking into account those most affected. For example, the clearance of a woodland for timber may invoke a considerable amount of local contention, but the sense of loss felt by small groups of local residents may well be diluted by the indifference of the wider populace.
Nor does CBA take into account either the sustainability of the proposed action or the potential for reversibility in the event of a change in policy or preference. As I have already identified there are inherent problems in predicting what the requirements of future generations might be, but a course of action which forecloses on options in the future would not appear to be a prudent one. For example, some resources may be, by their very nature, finite. Non-market values such as archaeology cannot be replaced once they have been destroyed. How can a resource such as archaeology be assigned a monetary value when it is irreplaceable? Can such a resource be left to the aggregated arbitrary or intuitive responses of individuals? In this sense, CBA appears to be grounded very much in the present without obligation to future generations; a prospect in itself abhorrent to classical utilitarianism.
CBA tends only to evaluate options that may be required as a use of a woodland and does not offer any real insight into the most appropriate use for that site. Consider a new woodland planting area, perhaps within a designated Community Forest area. Preferences for conservation benefits and recreational use may be generated without recourse to the actual potential of the site to meets those particular needs. Nor do the valuations take account of the impacts on the wider community, environment, or industry (although these could theoretically be built into the equation). By this I am referring to the impact, say, of forestry activities, contributing to the reduction in the timber trade deficit of Britain (currently standing at £8 billion). Commodity derivatives from forests, such as timber, are essentially devalued because only their market value is normally taken into account and not the subsidiary benefits of a thriving forestry industry such as investment, local employment, reduction in the national import deficit, the environmental impact of long distance transportation, and reduced impact pressures on the timber resources and endangered habitats of other countries.
There is a strong case against CBA on the grounds that it may actually exaggerate the gulf between market and non-market benefits. The dualistic framework within which it operates actually forms an impediment to the conception of forestry as a traditional and forward moving land use. Forestry is well able to deliver a great number of benefits through its normal practices and activity (although some of the industrially driven excesses of the last century still need to be modified). It is implicit in the framework that timber production is not an integrated (or integratable) and sustainable landuse, but an exploitative economic activity that may need to curb its excesses, in the form of trade offs, in order to justify its continued existence.
In the past, accounting systems may well have created a dualistic framework in favour of commercial interests and market benefits. I contend that CBA actually perpetuates the dualism, but by reversing the action in favour of non-market benefits. There is an inherent bias in the way that values are derived in favour of non-market benefits. Because there seems to be an emergent preference for certain benefits, ways are sought by which to objectify and, more importantly, justify those values in numerical and rationalist terms. Consequently non-market benefits tend to become exaggerated in their favour or, more correctly perhaps, their validity is only endorsed when its suits a political agenda. As Grove-White points out; “the results may “work” (ie. go unchallenged) when the outputs appear favourable to the environment, as has tended so far to be the case. But when the results go the other way - that is when they arouse controversy, and are challenged - the outputs will tend to command little public or political credibility”. More importantly, perhaps, is that this constitutes a departure from objectivity rather than a convergence with it. This results in the findings being no more valid than an intuitive or entirely subjective response.

The creation of a dualistic framework with which to set commercial interests against those of the wider community is, I contend, an artificial one. It has arisen as a response of the emergent post-industrial attitudes to forests by the present generation to the industrial exploitation of woodlands by previous generations. However, the bias in favour of a desirable benefit has merely been reversed with the non-market benefits now being regarded as the most desirable element. This approach merely increased the divide between those who think that forests should only be managed to deliver non-market benefits and those who believe that forests should only be managed for commercial purposes. In actuality, commercial aspects of forest management can often enhance the potential non-market benefits (eg. nightjar and long-eared owls at Stockhill Woods). Likewise, not all non-market benefits are mutually compatible, even if commercial activities are not an issue (eg. archaeology, conservation and community interests at Welshbury Woods).
Finally, there arises the potential problem of tradability and substitution of  objectives. By comparing the imputed value of one course of action over another, whether the unit of comparison be in monetary units or brass buttons, we are essentially comparing its trading value. Indeed, to a degree the whole point of the CBA exercise is to establish a trading value of a range of potentialities. However, the policy of multiple benefit forestry does not inherently value one form of benefit over another and relies on the ability of non-standard accounting systems to inform decisions. The problem is that CBA places a  price tag on the value of those non-market benefits.
Consider the situation in which a quarry company approaches a forest owner with a view to clear an area of woodland and open a quarry. Through CBA it is calculated that the cost to the environment and the social negative impact, effect on the landscape, etc outweigh the employment, industry and resource benefits by a figure of around £20 million. The CBA suggests that the quarry project should not go ahead. However, by its own definition CBA allows for the £20 million shortfall to be made up in the form of compensation. Of course, in order for this to be the case the compensation would need to be directed at actually compensating communities for inconveniences caused, such as providing a social facility or creating a new wildlife habitat. The situation then is that, providing that its’ chequebook is big enough, the quarry company can effectively buy the right to do anything it wishes (notwithstanding any legal/ planning restrictions).
However, when local residents are faced with the inevitability of the loss of woodland to be replaced by a quarry, I perceive that the value of the benefits foregone would suddenly rise and a revised CBA would need to be carried out. Consequently, this type of approach is likely to frustrate and exacerbate the conceptual conflict rather than reduce it. When CBAs are being carried out, what people are being asked is; what is the price of your principles? What would it take in order for you to allow this quarrying/ destruction of ancient woodland/environmental destruction, etc to go ahead? As Holland points out regarding this point; “the idea that willingness to pay is a measure of how much something matters to us is in general somewhat suspect. In the sphere of parent/child relations, for example, we might reflect that paying out large sums of money is precisely not the way for a parent to demonstrate how much their child matters to them”.
So, the surrogate valuation methods as commonly used in CBA reveal more about the attitudes of individuals towards money than they reveal about their attitudes towards their moral values. Grove-White presents  three basic objections to the use of surrogate valuation methods which support this claim:
1.	That they are psychologically naive.
2.	That they are sociologically inadequate in their assumptions about the character of value.
3.	That a pre-selection judgement is made on what areas of study are appropriate in ways which understate the subtle range of concerns.
First, the claim of psychological naiveté. It is Grove-White’s contention that  the contingent valuation method and the travel cost method involve an economically reductionist perspective of the ways in which individuals’ values are actually constituted. He claims strong objections to conceptualising environmental values exclusively in terms of individuals’ preference rankings based on a market analogy. Furthermore, he cites empirical evidence to suggest that individuals may well be uncomfortable with the prospect of their preferences being essentially compounded in order to establish values regarding the environment that they regard as common goods.
In the second instance, Grove-White posits that the same methodological individualism that establishes the first objection is also responsible for the problems individuals may have in reflecting fully, through their responses, the culturally negotiated character of environmental values in many circumstances. And thirdly, the range of questions that could possibly be responded to do not adequately reflect the very broad range of subject matter that constitutes our experience of the environment. Therefore, there is an inherent bias in the way that questionnaires are constructed which pre-selects certain values as the focus of attention rather than the values which may be of concern to the individual in question.
So, there are a number of problems inherent in the use of Cost-Benefits Analysis systems and the surrogate valuation techniques which impute values and create artificial markets where none normally exists. The standard fall back position of the economist in defence of the these types of systems, is that they are intended to inform political debate rather than serve as a means of absolute deliberation. However, anybody who has had experience of this, will know that in the majority of cases once an accounting  tool such as CBA comes to be widely accepted it is all too often employed as a political club in the discursive arena rather than a knife and fork to enable the more efficient consumption of the delicacies on offer.

Some Possible Alternatives to Cost-Benefit Analysis and the use of Surrogate Valuation Methods.
While monetaristic comparisons of goods can have uses in certain areas of political and management decision making, I have shown that there are a number of inherent problems with its universal application to informing environmental management strategies. This leaves us with our original problem of how the woodland manager determines courses of action which satisfy the wide range of objectives expected of the post-industrial forest. A range of other options that don’t involve the applications of numerical values are available. One problem of such approaches is that in the absence of methods of numerical comparison, success or failure is difficult to quantify. However, desired outcomes can still be identified which will indicate success or otherwise.
Hierarchies
One possible method of determination of management strategies is to try and establish whether any of the values that have so far been described can be prioritised in absolute terms. As it is a mathematical impossibility that more than one variable can be maximised at the same time (unless by happenstance), cases will inevitably arise in which two conceptually conflicting objectives will occur. The maximisation of one will therefore result in the diminution of the other, or possibly the sub-optimalisation of both. Furthermore, hierarchies would serve a purpose in determining the allocation of scant resources to delivering benefits perceived to be of greater value.  But losses of some forms of value must be accepted in some cases in order to maximise those benefits which are regarded as locally (or nationally) important. The theory is that this results in the optimisation of on-site values without compromising the integrity of the individual values. This also avoids the charge of the dilution of all the values which might normally result in the sub optimisation of utility and/or social welfare. But can a hierarchy of values be established that provides an non-negotiable structure which will determine courses of actions in cases of conceptual conflict?
The Forestry Strategy for England carefully avoids use of hierarchical prioritisation. By its very nature multiple benefit forestry tends to emphasise the multiplicity and variety of the benefits of forests. Whereas this may be useful in some respects, it can lead to the dilution of values in forests. All too often in the past the notion of multiple benefit forestry has resulted in a little bit of everything everywhere, with no values being fully realised but many being partially realised or, more often than not, largely eroded. 
Owing to the diversity of the British forest resource it would be difficult to say in absolute terms which of the various benefits would take precedence in cases of conflict. However, as we have seen in previous sections, one of the defining factors of the policy is that management strategies are sustainable. Therefore it would seem appropriate to declare that management strategies should at least be sustainable. This would refer not only to timber producing operations (often the sole focus of the issue of sustainability) but also to recreational activities such as tourism, resources for conservation projects, and industry.
To a degree, the idea of objectives as trumps is already incorporated into strategies via the employment of land use and conservation designations from the European to the local level (Scheduled Ancient Monument, Sites of  Special Scientific Interest, Local Nature Reserves). These can be useful in cases where woodlands are relatively simple However they can add to the confusion in areas where there may be several designations of national significance relating to the same site (eg. SAMs and SSSIs) which are valued for very different reasons, as is the case at Welshbury. In such cases it might be difficult to reconcile the conflict between the objectives of archaeology and ecology.
One possible way forward for the employment of hierarchies is the use of zoning strategies. This is widely employed in environmental and industrial/ town planning to determine which areas should be allocated to housing or industry. It has also been adopted by several unitary authorities in order to create Indicative Forest Strategies, which seek to guide the distribution of afforestation at the landscape level. Zones are allocated on the basis of their existing and desirable character and potentialities with regard to afforestation. The system may also work in cases of conflict below the landscape level as a part of the Forest Design Plan process. Typically complex sites with several conflicting objectives may be partitioned in order to maximise the value of individual objectives in different areas of the forest. It should be noted that the use of zoning strategies as a town planning tool has gained something of a bad press in recent years. In many cases attempts at the use of the strategy may have failed because of the use of the tool rather than a problem with the tool itself. The overriding factor regarding its use in woodland management is the potential of the woodland rather than the external pressures that are put on it.  Zoning strategies may not be universally appropriate, but may be useful in separating conflicting objectives.
Community Management
Following the release of recent declarations from the Forestry Minister, and in light of the emphasis on social benefits stressed in the Forestry Strategy for England (which will no doubt be equally emphasised in the strategies for Wales and Scotland), more and more focus is being placed on the prospect of community involvement in determining local management decisions. This may even result in communities making deliberative decisions regarding present and future management in their local forest or woodland. Ideas such as these are already being trialled in a number of locations under the heading, “forests for real”, the success of which are yet to be known.
The benefit of such a strategy is that individuals with a stake in their local forest resource have a direct input to the management strategy rather than one that has been filtered through the process of selective response and aggregation (as with the surrogate valuation methods). It may also provide a discursive arena in which individuals can deliberate on options, and seek information on the likely outcomes of varying management options. In theory, on a local scale this strategy should be enable the delivery of maximum utility in the form of social welfare, as the management strategy that is selected will reflect the preference rankings of those most affected.
However, sound though this strategy may be in terms of its social and utilitarian ideals, it is fraught with practical problems if communities are allowed to make decision regarding woodland management without restriction. These problem take four distinct forms;
1.	Lack of expertise
2.	Sub-optimalisation
3.	Domination
4.	Accountability
Firstly, lack of expertise. Local communities working in isolation may not be aware of the full range of issues that affect the functioning of woodlands (eg. the practicalities of woodland management, implementing strategies, how to achieve results, etc). For example, a community wants a woodland to regenerate but does not want to see either large, exclusive fences erected to exclude deer, nor are they comfortable with the prospect of deer being culled as a control measure. Thus consequential and conceptual conflict may become a source of confusion leading to ineffective management strategies. These potential conflicts and problems could, to a degree, be resolved via the input of expert advocates such as conservation experts, foresters, landscape architects, etc.
Even with the input of local professionals and experts, if the decision regarding the objectives of management rest with communities there is a real danger of sub-optimalisation. This is to say that the wishes of the community are being fulfilled, or so it is perceived, but this is not necessarily consistent with the potentialities of the woodland in question. Therefore, the potential benefits that can be realised from a woodland are being sub-optimised. For example, conservation may be high on the list of objectives for a community, but the potentiality of the site as being important for industrial archaeology is lost to the wider community. Indeed, such an approach may enhance the social welfare of temporally local generations, but may well mean the disclosure of certain other benefits to future generations. Of course, there is no guarantee that any deliberative method will not have the same effect.
There is always a danger that one assertive individual will dominate discussions and exert their individual preferences over those less assertive. Furthermore, not all individuals will wish to be involved in determining management strategies for woodlands; they might just want somewhere to walk their dog in peace and quiet. Therefore, there needs to be a mechanism for protecting the aspirations of those members of the community who are by and large silent and wish to remain so.
Local communities may not be accountable to anybody other than themselves. The management options that they determine may be unsustainable and while it satisfies the needs of the present generation may have a negative impact on those of future generations. Local communities are much more likely to construct strategies that will maximise utility in the short term than forego benefits in the present generation in order to create benefits for the future. Nor are they obliged to take into account impacts on external resources such the effects of timber production on employment, the import deficit and consumption of  timber resources from other parts of the world. Nor are they obliged to take into account passive values such as those that the wider community may have for the certain values of a particular woodland. It is a characteristic of modern society that individuals are much more inclined to invoke their rights than they are to discharge their social and environmental responsibilities.
For these reasons I would reject the prospect of direct community deliberation strategies in the form described above. This does not discount direct input from communities, of course; it merely excludes the right of communities to determine absolute strategies in isolation and without accountability to the wider community. An interesting possible alternative to this form of management would be  a citizens jury in which members of the community are asked to select from a range of viable and costed alternatives.

Management Trajectories
O’Neill and Holland offer an alternative approach to those cited above. Their suggestion is that the properties that determine the quality of experience of a site or landscape is engendered in its narrative; that a site is essentially the product of its natural history and its management. This puts a strong emphasis on the landscape as being uniquely constituted by  its cultural history and the response of nature to  human intervention. Through this method of perception humanity is not set apart from nature, but the history of humanity and nature are seen as essentially intertwined. Furthermore, this approach allows for the development of the landscape as a dynamic and constantly evolving cultural tradition. 
The management strategy, then, is to construct an appropriate trajectory for the site which continues the narrative based on the influences of the past and the requirements of the present and future. It is not uncommon in the implementation of policy to try and eradicate those aspects of the previous policy that were considered ill-guided or dangerous. But it is important to remember that those policies, in all probability, played an important role in formulation at the present policy, and that the present policy will play an equally important role in the formulation of policy in the future. Furthermore, there is no assurance that current policies will suit the ends of future generations; indeed future generations may well totally reject the moral deliberations of the present.
A typical example would be that of the restoration of replanted Ancient Woodland sites. Over the last hundred years many Ancient Woodland sites have been cleared of broadleaved trees and replanted with conifers. There is now a strong emphasis on the restoration of such sites to their earlier broadleaved composition. The coniferisation of these woodlands is now widely regarded as ecologically deleterious, but has played an important role in their physical and cultural development. In our memories we tend to lay emphasis on the immediate past and the immediate future, and discount those  past and future events which are beyond living perception. However, over the integral life of a woodland (possibly several thousand years into the past and an unknown quantity into the future) the events of the last hundred years, and even the next hundred, have relatively minor importance. But they do contribute to the narrative. Therefore, there is a strong case for the retention of areas of conifers in some of these restored woodlands, as they contribute to the narrative of the woodland’s developmental history. This seems to be a progressive step rather than the regressive one of trying to identify a notionally appropriate time from the past to which a woodland should be restored. Not only is such a view dogged by the problems of choice of restoration period, but it also demeans the dynamism of nature to respond to human impacts. It would also stultify the possibility of newly evolving landscapes and traditions.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, this approach to the determination of management strategies is not without its own short comings, which O’Neill and Holland readily accept. Such an approach requires insight and the ability to communicate to others the reasoning behind certain approaches which may not be immediately apparent. There is also the possibility of sub-optimising the values that are deemed to be appropriate by the current society and are detailed in the multiple benefit policy. Such an objection as this may well be worthy of an economist, and is likely to fall foul of the charges directed at the mathematical comparison approaches of the  earlier sections.
Finally there is the possibility of ending up with a little of everything everywhere if the projected narrative were too complex with many layers of significance, as could possibly happen at Welshbury. We could easily lose the essential character of some of our most important sites. Again, this is a matter that must be resolved through insight and good judgement; what are the aspects of a woodland that determine its sense of place? How can that character be enhance while contributing to the wider needs of society? Such questions cannot be answered through mathematical analysis, but through the development of judgmental skills and insight tempered with the aspirations of local communities. A direct and unfiltered grasp of the issues and essential characteristics of a woodland are the vital elements of good future planning.
These approaches require a significant shift in the perspectives of forest managers. The traditional concept of foresters as managers of trees must be cast aside in favour of one that is much more broad based. While mathematical analysis is still an important function in woodland management , the growing and harvesting  of trees solely as a resource is now only a small part of the forest managers’ responsibility to society. Foresters, and those with responsibility for land management decisions, need to develop insight and judgement into the varied uses and pressures placed on woodlands and forests. I maintain that foresters are best placed to make these decisions with regard to woodlands, but will need to develop a new range of skills as well as revive some of those that have been lost over the last eighty years of economics driven high input/ high output forestry. Particularly important over the coming decades will be the effective communication of ideas to communities. This will require the forest manager to develop a new role as an advocate to society; one who can bring awareness of technical and conceptual difficulties inherent in the delivery of multiple benefit forestry. Strategies will need to reflect the needs of local communities balanced against the aspirations of the wider society and the environment. The sensitive management of conflict and change in the environment will be vital in convincing society of the competency of foresters to manage the diverse and complex woodland resource.

Conclusion
Forestry and woodland management in Britain has changed dramatically over the last hundred years. From the war torn years of the first half of the century, attitudes towards forests and woodlands have developed in such a way that could not have been imagined by our forebears. With growing wealth, education, leisure time, and access to the countryside, came a growing environmental awareness. The thrust of this awareness has largely been to reduce resource pressure on forests, but has led to different sorts of pressures becoming apparent; those created through the realisation of non-market benefits.
Historically, forest policy in Britain has tended to focus on the provision of sustainable levels of timber resources to safeguard the industrial and security interests of the state. Over the last century this has led to the overall expansion of woodlands with a distinct character. During the last quarter of the twentieth century, the British government policy has turned its focus to the provision of non-timber benefits to society. This has been fostered by such high profile summits such as those seen at Rio in 1992 and Helsinki in 1993. The current policy is engendered in the Forestry Strategy for England (soon to be followed by those for Scotland and Wales) which lays out the framework for the delivery of multiple benefit forestry from both private and public forests.
The principle aim of multiple benefit forestry is to expand woodlands and manage Britain’s existing woodlands sustainably for the benefit of society and the environment. At face value this policy aspires to accord the same level of benefit to the environment and society, but a further analysis of this relationship indicates that the environment can only be granted the same level of considerability providing the benefits of the environment are consistent with those of society. Under this policy, in its present form, any value that the environment has is contingent on the value that society places on it. 
That successive British governments have slowly moved over to a multiple benefit forestry policy is not in the least part unusual. Mather cites this as the final phase of  changing societal attitudes to forests and woodland. These range from the “pre-industrial” (largely community held) , through the highly productive (and often exploitative) “industrial” phase, to the “post-industrial” attitudes espoused by the wealthier nations of the world today. The changing attitudes of society create a series of problems in the distribution of sustainable benefits for forest managers. History has shown that we cannot predict with any certainty what the needs of future generations will be. This provides us with the problem of not really knowing what it is that we are trying to sustain. It is considered that there may be a strong case for an overall reduction in the need to produce timber from British woodlands. However, there is a strong case for maintaining levels of production (providing these levels are ecologically and socially sustainable) on grounds of economics, sustainability of timber as a resource, conservation and cultural heritage.
With the wide range of benefits available from forests, there is much room for conflict. This can occur in three forms; those of Conceptual, Dynamic and Consequential (logical) conflict. Conflicts of these various kinds arise through disparity in the demands that society place on forests and woodlands. Those elements of a woodland visit that make that visit enjoyable may be anathema to another member of society depending on preference. As the multiple benefit forestry policy does not prioritise the delivery of one benefit over another there arises a problem of sub-optimalisation of benefits in cases of conflict. The problem for the woodland manager is one of managing a woodland in such a way that optimises the potential benefits for the whole of society. One of the main challenges to the woodland manager is the resolution of these conflicts.
A range of evaluative methods are at the woodland manager’s disposal as an aid to decision making. Cost-Benefit Analysis has been widely regarded as an objective means of comparing potential options against one another in terms of total utility. In order for these to work effectively a cardinal scale is required as a means of direct comparison of market and non-market benefits. This is largely carried out through the creation of notional markets and surrogate valuation techniques, as a means of converting individuals’ preferences into monetary units. The preferences of the individuals’ sampled are aggregated to arrive at a figure that represents the notional utility value of that benefit.
Although much research has been carried out into these methods of valuation, not least by the Forestry Commission, these are found to be largely ineffective in accurately representing the true attitudes of individuals towards the environment and other non-market benefits. Furthermore, there is no justification for the use of monetary values in the calculation of societal attitudes other than convenience and the identification of opportunities for substitution of values.
The use of hierarchies and zoning strategies may assist in the determination of local strategies. However, the multiple benefit policy does not seek to offer any prioritisation regarding how the benefits should be prioritised or distributed, and it is left to local managers to determine how this might best be achieved. Failures of this strategy in town planning are not difficult to find and it this approach should be used with caution.
One of the latest developments in government policy is that of community involvement. New documents and statements have recently been released that provide communities with a guarantee of a greater level of involvement in decision-making in their local woodlands. In some cases this will involve management decisions being made by local communities. However, this approach is not without its problems. This utilitarian ideal of direct decision-making is undermined by problems such as a  lack of technical expertise, the risk of sub-optimalisation, potential lack of sustainability, domination by vociferous minorities and the lack of accountability to the wider society.
An approach that still holds weight, although fraught with its own problems, is that of informed deliberation by individuals tempered by the views of local communities and interest groups. This requires insight into formulating narrative trajectories. These trajectories are a continuation of the cultural and natural heritage of a site, picking out those aspect of a site that give it a sense of place. Such insights largely defy all attempts at numerical analysis and may thus be viewed with suspicion in some quarters. Nevertheless, such an approach allows  woodland managers and interested groups to discuss issues without the hindrance of monetary units and associated price tags. This approach also allows for the evolution of cultural landscapes by taking into account the aspirations of present and future generations.
As an ideal, multiple benefit forestry has much to commend it. As a working policy, this ideal is frustrated by confusion over conflicting issues arising from too broad a range of considerability. A wide range of potential benefits are available from woodlands, but none are prioritised by the policy and this can lead to conflicts over use and expected utility. The use of the Surrogate Valuation Methods and Cost-Benefit Analysis type approach to decision-making is unlikely to provide the basis of a satisfactory determinant management strategy. Such an approach will lead to the sub-optimalisation of all values or the prioritisation of one value at the expense of the rest. At worst such an approach will establish a trading value for individual benefits.  Deliberation by highly trained and insightful individuals followed by informed debate with interested parties, is regarded as the most promising means of determining management strategies for woodlands. This will require the development of a broad range of skills by those responsible for the production of such management plans including that of the manger as an advocate to society.

References
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (1992). Statement of Forest Principles. Reprinted in; Sustainable Forestry: the UK programme. CM2429. HMSO, 1994.

Forestry Commission (1999) England Forestry Strategy

Forest Enterprise (1999) Corporate Plan 1999-2000.

Rackham, O (1990) Trees and Woodlands in the British Landscape. Phoenix Giant.

James, NDG (1981) A History of English Forestry. Basil Blackwell. Oxford.

O’Neill,J (1993) Ecology, Policy and Politics. Routledge.

Kennedy, JJ (1985) “Conceiving Forest Management as Providing for Current and Future Social Value”, Forest Ecology and Management 

Mather, AS, (1990) Global Forest Resources. Bellhaven Press.

O’Connor, M & Heron, C .(1999) “Forest Value and the Distribution of Sustainability: Valuation Concepts and Methodology in Application to Forest Islands in Agricultural Zones in France”. in The Living Forest: Non-Market Benefits in Forestry. Eds. Roper, CS & Park, A .Forestry Commission
Attfield, R (1991) The Ethics of Environmental Concern. University of Georgia Press.
Grove-White, R (1999) “Are Surrogate Valuation Methods Useful? A Sceptic’s View”. in The Living Forest: Non-Market Benefits of Forestry. Eds. Roper, CS & Park, A. Forestry Commission.

Goodin, RE (1983) “Ethical Principles for Environmental Protection”. in Environmental Philosophy. Eds. Elliot,R & Gare,A. Open University Press.

Hart, C. (1991) Practical Forestry for the Agent & Surveyor. Sutton.

E.R.M. (1993) The Valuation of Biodiversity in UK Forests. Environmental Resources Limited.
Forestry Commission (1991)Trees & the Treasury. HMSO.
Plumwood, V (1993) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Routledge.
Holland, A (1995) Assumptions of Cost-Benefit Analysis - A Philosopher’s View. Thingmount Working Paper Series on the Philosophy of Conservation. Lancaster University.
von Neumann, J & Morgenstern, O (1947). Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Wiley. Quoted in Hardin, G (1968) “The Tragedy of the Commons”. in Science.
O’Neill, J & Holland, A (1996) The Integrity of Nature Over Time. Thingmount Working Paper Series on the Philosophy of  Conservation. Lancaster University
Stebbing, EP (1928) The Forestry Question in Great Britain. The Bodley Head.
Forestry Industry of Great Britain (1999) FICGB Yearbook.
Forest Enterprise (2000) Forests for People: Working With Communities in England, Our Commitment. Forestry Commission.

Forestry Commission (2000) Press Statement; “Local Communities are a Priority, Says Minister”. No.3092, 26th June 2000. Forestry Commission