CSFL ‘Walkshop’

On an overcast autumnal day, a gradual gathering of folk from forestry, conservation and academic roles collected in a circle by the ice cream van at the edge of Holyrood park. From friends, to familiar faces, to quick smiles between new folk, there was a sense of anticipation to learn why we were summoned and what was in store for the afternoon. Through introductions from the CSFL co-directors Patrick and Marc, we were informed that the ‘walkshop’ was intended to trial a new format to reflect on a topic that is regularly raised during the monthly EFLN events: tensions between conservation and forestry. The request for participants was simply: get outside to have a convivial conversation, share your own experiences and knowledge, and listen to others’ perspectives in return. 

Through a sophisticated system of name badges - we were all identifiable by name, colour-coded sector, and then arranged into three groups of 5-6 with a mix of sector representatives. After a brief round of introductions in the groups, we were instructed to pair up with someone from a different sector. We set off walking and talking, two by two, and discussing the first question:

What are the tensions you see between conservation and forestry?

Having wandered uphill towards Salisbury Crags, we returned to large a circular group in the long grass and shared insights from the paired conversations. A few key points raised included:

• Language matters: Spend time to defining clearly the terms ‘conservation’ and ‘forestry’ to form a common foundation on which to have a conversation about tensions.
• It’s a spectrum: ‘Forestry’ and ‘conservation’ are not separate concepts as there is forestry in conservation and conservation in forestry.
• Perceptions are contagious: Stereotypes and tropes exist of conservationists amongst foresters and vice versa, which are too often passed on to early career professionals and reinforce polarising dynamics.
• Policy tensions play out in practice: The government wants both commercial forestry for timber security, but also to reach net zero and meet biodiversity targets.
• There are areas of common ground: Such as the imperative for effective deer management.

Whilst conversation could have continued indefinitely, to avoid getting chilly, we switched pairs and kept walking along an increasingly narrow path to discuss the next question:

How do these tensions between conservation and forestry affect your work?

On a steeper patch of ground, we clustered into our smaller groups to share and discuss – in my group, the conversation highlighted the following impacts:

• Personal and professional impact: tensions take a toll for both conservationists, with a disheartening sense of defeat at the lack of progress, and foresters, who experience conservation and community backlash to woodland creation projects.
• Regulations - power to say go or no: From a commercial forestry perspective, regulations were perceived as cumbersome but fair, yet the conservationists view the regulatory system as being rigged towards profit and a tick-box exercise rather than having the power to stop plans on account of the present biodiversity.
• Energy draining sinkholes: Researchers often felt dragged into social media debates in which polarising views lead to heated debates without recognition of the complexity or scope for nuance. 

Switching partners for a final time, we strolled downhill onto a wider set path to circle back to the start and pondered on Question 3: 

How do we reduce tensions between conservation and forestry?

Returning to a big group setting again, big ideas, small actions, and insightful thoughts were shared:

• Need for neutral research: Universities could do more to provide an unbiased balance of evidence, such as the growing work of CSFL.
• Pros of landscape partnerships: More examples and use of cross-land use sector collaboration rather than working in silos in both policy and practice.
• Making space for productive conversation: More talking through the complexity with events like this walkshop as a good approach – fresh air was found to be effective at minimising friction.
• Whose missing from these conversations currently?
  • Forestry workers and contractors lack a voice and representation;
  • Policymakers and agricultural voices were not present at this event.
• Notice the small wins: Acknowledge that there’s a lot of people working to improve the world and address these tensions, like those in this group!

With bellies rumbling, we headed for supper. Three tables with mixed up groups made for a relaxed continuation of conversation, and flowing chatter of getting to know each other better, understanding what each other’s work roles entail, and opportunities for connections going forward. After a generous succession of tasty plates, the wrap-up finale of the event was a resounding consensus that more of these events would be welcome and ideally with longer to talk – this time taken had brushed the surface of the tensions, but it’s an iceberg of a topic so plenty more to discuss!