This paper describes research into the historic importance of the coppice industry, now largely restricted to south east England and the relevance of this to current rural development policy. The economic and social contexts have altered significantly over time with product substitution and changing consumer aspirations, and particularly the availability of alternative fuel sources. Over the last fifty years the “value” attached to coppiced woodlands has shifted away from resource exploitation and towards a greater appreciation of them for wildlife, recreation, amenity and cultural heritage. This has increased wider public awareness of and appreciation for coppicing as a management technique and, consequently rising concern over the reduction in area managed. This was assumed to be due to market failure but attempts to reverse this by creating new outlets failed. The reason for this has been explored by engaging directly with the workforce, both individually and in focus groups. Coppice workers were found to be more numerous, active and enterprising than previously thought, and many were found to be working in family groups servicing traditional markets. They were unaware of concerns about decline in the area coppiced or initiatives to address it. Issues currently affecting their businesses included housing costs, rural crime, harvesting restrictions, loss of yards and training needs. It is concluded that Government policies to promote woodfuel are not likely to succeed without active engagement with the workforce to understand their perspectives and enabling them to participate in policy decisions is recommended.
Historically coppicing was the most common way in which England’s woodlands were managed to provide small diameter roundwood for building, furniture, household and farm utensils, and particularly fuel for heating and cooking. Local conditions influenced both the native trees and the demand for products, with selection of “desirable” species over time resulting in the composition of today’s woodlands (
In the 1980s there was a paradigm shift in policy, reflecting the emerging environmental agenda. This resulted in the Forestry Commission switching from planting productive softwoods to encouraging native broadleaves, focusing on the “value” for woodland biodiversity and recreation and amenity (
The South East is the most wooded region in the UK (
Despite the general assumption, firmly held by the Forestry Commission, Natural England and the local authorities in the South East in the early 2000s, that coppicing had virtually died out except on nature reserves, the author, in the role of Kent Woodland Officer, was aware that the chestnut fencing industry was vibrant and the Sussex and Surrey Coppice Group had almost eighty members involved principally in coppicing hazel. This led to a long term investigation based direct engagement with the workforce to test the assumptions about the decline of the industry by determining how much coppicing was actually taking place and find out more about the workforce, with the specific aim of exploring whether there were any issues that were limiting coppice management. The rationale was that plans for the future are not likely to be achieved if the present situation is not adequately understood.
A mixed methods approach was taken involving:
a survey of the area actively coppiced. This was implemented by directly asking the cutters the area they had cut, the tree species, and the location. This had the additional advantage of raising worker’s awareness that “outsiders” consider their work important. Taking a “citizen science”, rather than systematic survey, approach is increasingly accepted as justified when data is difficult to obtain by other means (
Informal meetings with key people. In the case of chestnut the system of “coppice merchants”, who buy products from large numbers of people working singly or in small groups, persists. This enabled focus groups to be held in chestnut processing yards, ensuring good attendance, with refreshments provided by the host in several cases. Focus groups with the hazel/mixed species workers were added on to other events. The format was a basic “SWOT” analysis with participants identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to their coppice businesses.
face to face questionnaires were carried out informally, often completed by the researcher (there are literacy issues) whenever coppice workers were encountered, for example at the annual Weald Wood Fair, held in Sussex. In addition to basic social and economic data, reasons for joining the industry, family connections, methods of communicating with customers and attitudes to coppice work were explored.
The chestnut workers in particular are somewhat disinclined to engage with the authorities. These are, in the main, rural manual workers with low levels of formal education, who see coppicing as what they do to earn a living. There has been a long tradition of minor conflict with “the authorities”, for example the Forestry Commission, who they see as an unnecessary interference. This is deep seated and is probably the result of restrictions being placed on them; the Commission was certainly the last land owner to permit chainsaws to be used on their land. This is in marked contrast to the woodland workers termed by
This investigation was conducted using a mixed methods approach. The results will therefore be discussed in relation to the research questions.
This is not a systematic survey but depends on workers, and some woodland owners and managers estimating areas. However the verification carried out on about 10% of returns demonstrated a high degree of accuracy, perhaps not surprising as the majority of returns were from those whose livelihood depended on woodland. This survey, first carried out in 1999, and now in the 11th year, has variable numbers of responses and gives fluctuating areas. As an example in 2007/2008 the figure of 274.9 ha, was virtually the same as that of 250 ha for 2008/2009. However in the former 202 ha was mixed species, in the latter 193 ha was chestnut (
Face to face questionnaires were completed with 204 coppice workers active in South East. Eighteen were classified as new entrants to the profession, having been working for less than three years, and were not included in this analysis as many do not persist and the intention was to survey established workers. Of the remaining 186 individuals 11 were female and more than 50% were based in the county of Kent (
This part of England has relatively high woodland cover and is where most of the chestnut is found. When asked to identify tree species coppiced 46 declared they cut nothing but chestnut, 9 only hazel (
Further questioning revealed a family tradition of working in coppice, particularly with chestnut. Forty-six gave the main reason for joining the industry as joining family and a total of 80 were working with family members; 6 of these were female. The majority were found to be self-employed (133). Historically woodland work took place in the winter months, with some processing during the summer, as it was combined with agricultural work, the seasons fitting well together (
The largest number (126) produced firewood, in the form of domestic logs with 111 producing fencing material; more than half of these were in Kent. Minor products included charcoal (37), hurdles (21), rustic trellis (20), chip (10) and thatching spars (10). The most important, highest value, product is fencing - which includes hurdles and trellis - with some of the firewood and the chip being a by-product. However it should not be assumed that chip is for fuel as, in at least three cases, this was chestnut by-product sold as mulch for playgrounds. The questionnaire ended by asking respondents how they felt about their businesses. Seventy-eight felt it was improving, 79 that it was steady with just 9 reporting a decline. Twenty did not respond. Some 94% identified word of mouth as the principal method of selling their products and for 74 of these it was the sole marketing method; very few used the internet.
This research confirmed previous studies (
Mixed species have long been the source of fuelwood with all the by-products of value added processing, down to small twigs bundled into faggots, being saleable. The domestic log market is significant (but has not been quantified) and mostly conducted on a part time, casual, seasonal basis using mixed species, and is
Hazel (
There is no direct link to tradition and many of the hazel coppice workers come from quite different, not necessarily rural, backgrounds. Many were found to have made a life style choice, leaving more lucrative (but perhaps more stressful) employment for work in the woods. They have usually attended short training courses, work individually or as couples, and sell direct to their customers, often at farmer’s markets or at craft fairs, gaining additional income by demonstrating.
The third group specialise in harvesting and/or processing chestnut (
Although most are self-employed there is a high level of co-operation with individuals working together as and when required. These sell their produce, which may be cut and sawn to length, or processed in the wood, to “merchants” who negotiate sales, may have a team of specialist processors cleaving in their yard, and may buy standing wood and identify cutters for it. Harvesting takes place all year, with additional workers in winter. The chestnut coppice sector is the only one that can be considered as of industrial scale, with the area cut orders of magnitude greater than for hazel. There is a significant export market in addition to sales throughout the UK, and this appears to be growing.
Few women were identified in any of these three groups, although it is known that many workers rely on female partners or family members for assistance with paperwork.
There are no government restrictions or permissions required for most coppice harvesting in England, the exception being some of the very large chestnut cut for rails which requires a Felling License. Some landowners impose their own restrictions, often linked to use of the wood for shooting and there is strict legislation requiring a risk assessment approach for all woods where European Protected Species such as dormice (
The focus groups were held to identify specific issues affecting the workers with the intention of feeding this information to decision makers and to inform proposals for development. Participants, representing forty six businesses, included all three sectors, although either chestnut or hazel workers predominated at each event. There is little mixing between these and the tree species are found in different localities. There are specific issues, such as deer browsing hazel but not chestnut (
Further discussions, involving the “coppice merchants” rather than the workers, revealed concerns about security, with vehicle and equipment thefts common, uncertain tenancy of work yards and cash flow.
The existence of three distinct coppice sectors has wide implications and understanding the differences between them, not merely with respect to raw material and product, but also social structure and motivation, is fundamental to any future development. Government forestry policy in England is to increase woodland management for biodiversity and recreation, to increase carbon neutral energy and for rural development, with the key message that woodlands are “good for people, good for nature and good for the economy” (
This assumes that there is a baseline, and accurate data on current management, and an effective mechanism for the workforce to communicate with policy/decision makers. Neither is the case for coppice woodland management in South East England. The voluntary coppice survey is a “citizen science” approach to establishing the area of coppice cut and had provided evidence that this is significant. The assumption that promoting biomass fuel to drive coppicing is highly unlikely to succeed when the message from the workforce is that it is not a shortage of markets but rather too few workers to meet existing ones which, in addition, are more profitable than producing fuel.
The coppice survey has demonstrated that significant coppice woodland management is taking place each year in South East England. Three socio-economically distinct sectors have been identified and the marked difference, particularly between the chestnut and hazel workers, indicates that a single approach to increasing the area of woodland managed by coppicing is unlikely to succeed. The stated aim of helping the coppice sector to “find its voice” will require multiple approaches to knowledge transfer and participatory engagement.
Understanding the past has long been touted as the key to planning the future but do we really understand what a “modern” coppice industry for the future will be? Coppice woodland management is “valued” for different, potentially conflicting (ecosystem) services. In England the agencies and key stakeholders interested in, for example, nature conservation and recreation, communicate in forums such as Local Nature Partnerships, organised at county level. Woodland owners are well represented however there is no mechanism for those working in the woods, particularly in the chestnut sector, to engage in the decision making processes. The results of the coppice survey strongly suggest that more woodland is in active management than was previously thought, and the focus group and questionnaire-based research indicate a significant workforce who are not constrained by market issues. The issues they raised imply that there is a need for business and supply chain development, and further investigation into recruitment and retention of new entrants would be beneficial.
It would be interesting to explore whether this scenario, with the work force a neglected area of research, is unusual or common across Europe? Perhaps closer integration between academics and state forestry authorities for developing an understanding of the need for, and requirements of, a “modern” coppice industry would be beneficial.
Twelve year old chestnut coppice.
Hazel coppice workers.
Chestnut fencing: pale bundles.
Paling fencing.
Location of coppice workers based on home address.
County | N | % |
---|---|---|
Dorset | 2 | 1.5 |
East Sussex | 39 | 23.1 |
Hants | 9 | 4.8 |
Kent | 102 | 54.8 |
London | 2 | 1.5 |
Surrey | 16 | 8.6 |
West Sussex | 21 | 11.3 |
No reply | 1 | - |
Age of workers and main species worked.
Age | Total | Chestnutonly | Hazelonly | Mixedspecies | No cut |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
< 20 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
20-29 | 30 | 6 | 0 | 21 | 3 |
0-39 | 31 | 9 | 2 | 18 | 2 |
40-49 | 62 | 13 | 2 | 44 | 3 |
50-59 | 29 | 10 | 1 | 16 | 2 |
60-69 | 19 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 2 |
> 70 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
No age given | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Totals | 186 | 46 | 9 | 113 | 18 |
Top five results from the SWOT exercise.
Strengths | Opportunities |
---|---|
Product quality Available wood; raw material Good at job; experience knowledge skill; quality of work; flexible Sustainably managing woods; low environmental impact; good for the environment Demand for products; good customer base; reliable market | Increasing markets; Large potential market; Growing firewood markets Education/training; plenty of wood; range products; environmental concern; chestnut’s durability as an untreated hardwood Making better use of dis-guarded material; FSC certification; promoting local products/ in-house marketing Educating the public to demand for home grown products; being positive rather than not negative |
Weaknesses | Threats |
Old machinery and equipment Marketing Lack of capital Small business/lone workinghard labour intensive work with impact on health; lack of training; legislation & HSE; poor product prices; lack of young pale makers and cutters | Insurance and housing costs Personal health or injury Competition from other workers/poor quality products/under cutting prices cheap imports (this refers specifically to hurdles) Lack of labour (from cutters to pale makers) Legislation and bureaucracy |