Stakeholder Consultation Feedback Report

The National Forest 25 Year Vision

106 Organisations involved

Priority areas identified:

Environment

• Carbon storage• Planning for green infrastructure and biodiversity• Tree planting

Society

• Health and wellbeing • Access infrastructure • Identity and sense of place• Engaging communities • Education

Economy

• Infrastructure and connectivity• Tourism• Planning for transport and character• Sustainability

228Individuals taking part

Themes:

Action areas identified:

Environment

Creation

Management

Adaptation

Society

Access

Identity

Engagement

Economy

Enterprise

Greening services

Circular economy

Next steps:

• Complete the Greenprint for launch in autumn 2020 as an online vision

• Establish a new National Forest Forum to oversee delivery

• Develop short term plans as part of a Green Recovery from Covid-19

Report Summary

The National Forest Vision: Shaping the next 25 years Stakeholder consultation feedback report

Introduction

Following the National Forest Climate Summit at the National Memorial Arboretum in November 2019 and a Parliamentary Event in January 2020, three local consultation workshops were held in February to provide stakeholders from across Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire with an opportunity to learn more about, and help shape the National Forest 25 year vision - a Greenprint for the nation. The purpose of the workshops was to discuss proposed future ambitions for the National Forest and identify key actions which need to be undertaken in pursuit of the vision.

In all, 228 individuals took part in the consultation, representing 106 of our stakeholder organisations from the environmental, economic and social sectors. This document summarises the combined results of the feedback received at the National Forest Climate Summit in November, the Parliamentary Event in January, three stakeholder workshops in February, and the online survey (see Annex 1 for a list of participating organisations). It draws out recurring themes and identifies those areas which require further thought and discussion. In each section, we explain what we will be doing to refine the vision narrative and Greenprint in the light of the feedback we have received. It should be noted that the workshops and comments were prior to the coronavirus pandemic, but consideration of the impact and recovery from COVID-19 are included in our proposals.

The report is divided into six sections:

1. The structure of the Greenprint and how well it resonated with stakeholders 2. The nine action areas 3. Targets 4. Suggestions for action 5. General comments and observations 6. Next steps

Original proposed structure of the Greenprint

The Report

1. The Greenprint structure and how well it resonated with partners

The consultation asked stakeholders how well the Greenprint concept and structure resonated with them and their own priorities. The most frequently cited responses were as follows:

Theme Response – areas which resonated with stakeholder priorities Environment Most frequently cited:

• Focus on carbon, in particular becoming carbon neutral, investigating carbon off-setting and carbon storage

• Influencing the planning system, in particular to support green infrastructure, habitat creation and biodiversity

• Tree planting/Forest creation Cited more than once:

• Climate emergency and net gain • Sustainable transport and transport infrastructure • Management of habitats • Engaging communities • Strategic alignment of organisations • Attracting businesses

Other: • Access and wellbeing • Waste and recycling • Developing specialist products • Habitat creation (other than trees)

Theme Response – areas which resonated with stakeholder priorities Society Most frequently cited:

• Focus on health and wellbeing • Importance of access infrastructure • Importance of identity and sense of place • Need to engage communities • Importance of education

Cited more than once: • Circular economy • Connection to nature • Behaviour change and individual action • Volunteering • Working in partnership and knowledge exchange • Sustainability • Tourism • National Forest as an exemplar/model • Local approach to delivery • Forest Towns

Other: • Strategic fit • Tree planting • Social prescribing • Planning policy • Inspiration • Recycling • Transport • Adapting visitor attractions

Theme Response – areas which resonated with stakeholder priorities Economy Most frequently cited:

• Importance of access infrastructure and connectivity • Tourism • Influencing planning policy, in particular transport and character,

not just planting • Focus on sustainability

Cited more than once: • Local procurement • Circular economy and business links • Connecting business, people and nature • Health and wellbeing

Other: • Natural capital and valuing ecosystems • Homes for future • Management of trees • Energy generation • Resilient infrastructure • Public transport provision • Industrial strategy and Local Economic Partnership (LEP)

Local identity

What we will do

The draft Greenprint vision resonated with the majority of stakeholders, fitting with their own priorities and aspirations for the future. It was reassuring to see that partner priorities were identified across the three main themes of the vision, suggesting that consultees were drawn from a range of interests and provided a good cross-section of strategic and delivery bodies. In light of the positive feedback from stakeholders, we will: • Continue to build on and develop the existing concept, structure and content of the

Greenprint. The draft vision has been endorsed by stakeholders as providing a good basis for a shared vision for the National Forest and for close partnership working on delivery

• Encourage partners to prioritise early action in those areas identified as having the strongest mutual support. These were carbon, green infrastructure, habitat creation, environmental resilience, health and wellbeing, access infrastructure, identity and sense of place, community engagement, public education (in its broadest sense), tourism, sustainability and low carbon transport

• Draw out further the integrated nature of the Greenprint in the next iteration. This feature was welcomed but needed to be emphasised

• Continue to present the National Forest as a place to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and to demonstrate sustainable living

With the subsequent impact of COVID-19 and the focus on recovery, we do not feel that this changes any of the fundamental drivers or objectives behind the Greenprint. Climate change still represents the biggest long-term threat, and our need to live more sustainably is still the right long-term ambition. Our recovery from COVID-19 should therefore also address these bigger aspirations, with opportunities to re-focus investment, policy and practice. The principle of a ‘green’ recovery from COVID-19 is therefore at the heart of how we will look to position the Greenprint in the short to medium term. This will mean a greater focus on economic recovery and the wellbeing of communities, and the important role our Forest environment can play in recovery.

2. The Nine Action Areas The consultation asked stakeholders whether the nine action areas felt like the correct priorities, and whether there were any action areas missing. The main areas of comment were as follows:

Theme Response Environment – action areas of creation, management and adaptation

• The action areas under ‘environment’ were felt to be broadly right • There was some debate over whether ‘adaptation’ was the right term to

use and whether ‘adaptation and mitigation’ or ‘resilience’ better reflected the areas of activity needed

• There were concerns that the theme was too tree-orientated and that the focus should ensure all habitats of the Forest are considered, and that important non-woodland habitats are not lost to woodland creation

• This was particularly the case with targets based on woodlands in active management and urban trees rather than management of all habitats and green infrastructure

• Suggestions were made about front-loading activity/timing of forest creation activity to take advantage of the current climate change priorities

• There was a recurring theme of ensuring adequate funding is available for creation to incentivise land use change and also to ensure that funding supported long-term management

• There was also discussion of the need to ensure that planning policy was integrated to support habitat creation and management (eg with housing and access), and that there is a key opportunity for demonstration of model developments in the Forest

Theme Response Society – action areas of access, identity and engagement

• The action areas under ‘society’ were felt to be broadly right • The main area of debate was over how clear some of the terms are and

whether this means that certain action areas are fully reflected or not. This is particularly the case with the following:

o Does ‘access’ refer to access for all eg ethnicity, ability, income, social class or is it more about physical access?

o There was also concern that the word ‘health’ might be missing and is it covered by ‘wellbeing’ or should ‘health and wellbeing’ be used?

o Is ‘education’ covered adequately by ‘engagement’? o Is ‘heritage’, especially intangible and rural heritage, adequately

reflected • There were a number of comments relating to sense of place / placemaking

/ sense of pride. This area was felt to be a central theme but needs further clarity and definition

• There were also comments that ‘identity’ should refer to urban as well as rural areas and needs to be reflected through our towns to create the Forest identity

• Comments on the extent to which we should be supporting communities and families to become more sustainable was a recurring theme, and whether individual action should come out more strongly

• There was significant discussion around access and low carbon transport, and whether transport should be part of the ‘access’ action area

• Proximity of woodland and nature to people was felt to be very important, particularly in terms of supporting health and wellbeing and connections to nature. This was perhaps not clear enough in the ‘access’ action

• Similarly, green infrastructure and its ability to influence the character and placemaking was felt to not come through as strongly as it should

Theme Response Economy – action areas of enterprise, greening services and circular economy

• The action areas under ‘economy’ were felt to be broadly right, but there was a sense that greater focus and clarity was needed as it could be interpreted as being too broad

• Greater definition was needed to ensure terms are clearer. For example, circular economy could relate to local food, de-carbonisation of growth, or waste reduction, and ‘net zero’ for the Forest could mean a range of measures of carbon output

• A number of elements were listed as missing. These included culture and behaviour change for more traditional businesses; CSR for environment and local community; connectivity of people and business; technology requirements; and carbon budgets

• A number of comments related to the need to better understand the National Forest economy as a starting point eg to map where businesses are, what is available locally, identify synergies and create networks within the economy, identify gaps in provision

• As with the society theme, there were challenges raised around sustainability and transport eg industries such as logistics located here – how should the vision relate to increasing their sustainability? It was felt that transport was a major theme including reducing travel and using emerging technologies and incentives

• There were also discussions around identity and pride, promoting the area as a place where businesses want to set up and people want to live

• It was felt that this theme should reflect the cost to the economy if we don’t mitigate and adapt to climate change. It should also highlight how businesses can be equipped to adapt through future proofing infrastructure, reducing flood risk etc. – adaptation as part of greening services

What we will do

The responses demonstrated that some stakeholders were confused about how the different themes and action areas will work together. Stakeholders also challenged the use of language. In some cases, this had given the erroneous impression of a much narrower focus than we had intended. In response to the comments received, we will: • Refine the narrative to better explain the way that the themes and action areas are

integrated ie under ‘society’, the actions work together by creating access opportunities in the Forest, ensuring that the wider landscape reflects the identity of the Forest, and then encouraging people to engage through different means. In our next iteration, we will explain clearly, with case studies, how this will work.

• Amend our descriptions. Whilst the description of ‘Forest’ cover does refer to all habitats, it is recognised that this can come across as too focused on woods and trees, leaving other habitats as an after-thought. We will amend the descriptions here to give greater weight to other habitats in the environment theme.

• Review the use of ‘adaptation’ as an action area. This was not clearly understood and may need greater definition, or amendment.

• Clarify terminology and explain exactly what we mean by each action area to reduce ambiguity. Some of this confusion arose from the use of single words to denote broad areas for action eg engagement, access. Although the narrative expanded on these words, specific activities were felt not to come through strongly enough eg ‘education’. We will provide more detailed descriptions of the action areas, and definitions of future programmes of work will provide additional detail.

• Further develop the economy theme. Economy emerged as the theme in greatest need of further thought and definition if we are to really articulate our ambition for the National Forest. We need a better baseline for what we mean by net zero and a better definition of the other terms used, including the circular economy and greening of services. We will clarify

these with examples, and also highlight the importance of the economy responding to climate change through both mitigation and adaptation.

• Highlight transport as a central issue. We will include both ‘active’ travel (eg walking and

cycling) within the society theme, and low carbon transport within the economy theme to demonstrate clearly where transport sits within the Greenprint.

3. Targets The consultation also asked stakeholders whether the headline targets identified for each of the action areas were clear and unambiguous. They were asked to suggest alternatives and to comment on whether the targets were felt to be sufficiently challenging. The main areas of comment were as follows:

Target Clear and Unambiguous? Sufficiently challenging?

En

viro

nm

en

t

1. Creation - 33% Forest cover

Overriding feeling was that not everyone will understand that ‘Forest cover’ includes a variety of habitats, agroforestry etc and will see this as woodlands only. It was suggested that there might be a clearer way of expressing this? Alternative or additional targets suggested: • % of improved habitats? • Scale for carbon

sequestration? • Quality of habitats?

Yes. 33% is a stretch but achievable. Other suggestions are that this might be presented as a minimum end point to aim for. Alternative or additional targets suggested: • More flexible target range–

e.g. limit of acceptance 25-40%?

• 33% - stakeholders wanted to understand a clear rationale for this figure – why is a third the right amount?

2. Management - 95% of woodlands in active management

Not everyone is clear about the definition – does this include non-intervention as a form of management? Should the definition be expanded to include all forest habitats and greenspaces? Alternative or additional targets suggested: • Target which encompasses

condition of woodland not just whether it is in active management?

• % of all habitats in active management / favourable condition?

Yes, it is sufficiently challenging. Alternative or additional targets suggested: • 100% rather than 95%

(including non-intervention)?

3. Adaptation - 20% increase in urban tree canopy cover

More uncertainty over whether this is the right target for this area of work. Alternative or additional targets suggested: • % increase in green

infrastructure (in urban areas)?

• Connectivity index for greenspace / habitats?

• Resilience of the natural environment?

Maybe - it depends on the baseline and how this is measured. It also depends on whether it is the right target in the first place.

Target Clear and Unambiguous? Sufficiently challenging? S

oci

ety

4. Access – 80%

of households within 500m of woodland

Target is clear but the link between the action area and target was uncertain as it seemed to only encompass the physical aspects of access. The target also says nothing about whether people are using or accessing the woodland. Alternative or additional targets suggested: • Measure whether people are

using the woodland – proximity on its own does not go far enough.

• Broaden to include habitats beyond woodland – eg natural green space?

• Include a target for non-physical aspects of access?

Maybe – depends on the baseline and whether this is the right target. General feeling that the target could be stretched or more ambitious. Alternative or additional targets suggested: • 100% or some stepped target

within the 100% (eg 80% within ‘x’, 20% within ‘y’) and including measure of use of woodland or green space?

5. Culture & Identity – 100% settlements reflecting character standards

Target is unclear. The ‘character standard’ idea was not understood. The target felt too ‘physical’ – should be about forest culture activities and sense of identity or place. Could this better reflect heritage, diversity or identity? The idea of a ‘standard’ being imposed could be seen as undemocratic. Focus on settlements was felt too narrow. Alternative or additional targets suggested: • Focus on forest culture or

sense of identity – less physical aspects?

• Should be broader than settlements and include urban and rural areas?

• Acknowledge the different diverse identities rather than a single character standard?

Maybe – if referring to physical character standards. 100% was felt to be ambitious and possibly not achievable. It was felt that this would be easier for new developments and harder to retrofit. Alternative or additional targets suggested: • Needs to be broadened

beyond physical standards to consider whether people feel part of the Forest?

6. Engagement – 80% of the population undertaking regular activity

Target is unclear. What is meant by ‘regular activity’? Felt that engagement should go beyond physical activity, especially if it is to be inclusive (eg elderly, physically disabled). What about engagement with non-Forest residents? Alternative or additional targets suggested: • Nature and wellbeing? • Connection with nature?

Maybe – depends on the baseline and whether this is the right target. 80% could be too ambitious but it depends on scope of ‘regular activity’. Alternative or additional targets suggested: • A new suite of indicators? • Something more relatable

than numerical targets?

Target Clear and Unambiguous? Sufficiently challenging? E

con

om

y

7. Enterprise – 25% jobs in priority sectors

Target is clear. However, there was a difference of opinion about whether it mattered which sector the jobs are in – some felt that it didn’t matter, others felt that it would help target inward investment and set an identity for the Forest economy. There was further debate about what the targets represent – should we be more interested in what businesses and local people will be thinking, saying, feeling, doing as a result? Alternative or additional targets suggested: • Target which starts with the

desired outcome? • Business growth rather than

% jobs in priority sectors? • Business alignment with the

Forest?

Difference of opinion here. Yes – very challenging (There is very low unemployment in the area). No – could be more ambitious.

8. Greening Services – Net zero by 2030

This was felt by most to be clear and a good target to have to be challenging on carbon. Alternative or additional targets suggested: • Transport was felt to be

underpinning – should it have a higher status in the plan or within this target?

Yes. The general feeling is that it is very ambitious but necessary. It was felt that annual targets would be needed to keep progress on track.

9. Circular Economy – Target to be set

No target has been identified in the Greenprint yet but the term ‘circular economy’ was felt to need clearer explanation – examples are needed to better understand the process and opportunity this presents, and what success looks like. Alternative or additional targets suggested: • % procurement within a

defined radius? • % waste products re-used

(e.g. ‘waste’ from one business becoming a useful ‘raw material’ for another)?

• Identify indicators instead of setting targets?

N/A

What we will do

The targets in the Greenprint were initially included to provide stakeholders with a sense of the scale of our ambition for the National Forest. A headline target was included for each of the action areas to illustrate what delivery might look like and provide a bridge between the actions and outcomes. What was apparent from the consultation, however, was that these specific targets were viewed as the only means by which progress would be measured. This had the result of skewing the focus and ambition for the action areas to those things that could be measured. What is also clear is that whilst some of the targets are helpful in communicating the vision, others are too ambiguous or one-dimensional and need further thought to provide a more accurate representation of either progress or success. In some cases, more qualitative assessments may be needed, or other measures introduced that help to highlight changes. In addition, the relationship between the targets and outcome measures was not explored in detail during the consultation. This was largely because the outcomes are still being finalised and baseline metrics have not been set. As a result, there was some confusion on how targets and outcome measures will work alongside each other. It is therefore proposed to take a different approach to try to address these concerns. This includes the following: • To retain those targets that were well received or can easily be amended to help

communicate the vision. These can be used in descriptions of progress or to articulate the sense of ambition. At this stage, however, we will not include single targets to represent each action area. It is felt that this will mean the vision is less constrained by work to deliver specifically against a single target.

• Alongside this, we will better define the shared ambitions for the action areas, including more detailed definitions and descriptions. Individual organisations, including the National Forest Company, can then use their own target setting to help determine their contribution towards realising the vision.

• We will review again whether the sense of ambition for the vision is more meaningfully communicated through visual or creative expression and case studies than through targets. This will explore success based on highlighting best practice and aspiration, rather than relying on the use of limiting targets.

• We will commission further work on the outcome measures for the Greenprint and their associated metrics. This will involve setting a series of baselines. This will also help to set the longer-term benefits of our work and clarify what we are ultimately looking to deliver through the vision. It will reinforce that targets are only a means to an end, and that it is the jointly owned outcomes that we are all interested in securing.

• A more detailed look at target setting can then be used for shorter-term delivery plans (perhaps over 3- or 5-year programmes of work) and campaigns for specific areas of the Greenprint, which will be produced with partners. This has already been shown to be helpful in achievement of progress on areas such as woodland management or outdoor learning.

4. Suggestions for action Stakeholders were asked to propose the actions that, collectively, we should do more of, along with new actions we should start. The main areas of comment were as follows:

Do more of Start Environment • Engage across all sectors and

communities – use ambassadors.

• Development of grant programmes around natural capital

• Education / awareness raising on the benefits of woodland and habitat management

• Generate a sense of pride and culture change in living in the National Forest

• Talk about habitats other than woodland

• Education and training for children, adults, businesses

• Explore carbon credit system to create and manage links to NHS – role in health and wellbeing

• Create a showcase village development highlighting the Greenprint with new habitat creation, green infrastructure, quality housing, low energy etc

• Use opportunity mapping as a first step to identifying and prioritising actions

• Create an Adaptation Innovation Fund

• Introduce iconic species (red squirrel, pine martin)

• Embed the concept of public money for public benefit

Society • Developing collaboration and partnership - all to stretch boundaries and challenge ourselves

• Not just the role of NFC to deliver the Plan – continue to engage partners, communities and businesses

• Communicate across boundaries to collaborate better

• National Forest identity building for wellbeing activities and venues

• Leadership on active travel to create network of greenways for walking, cycling, etc linking facilities

• More engagement with intermediaries: strategic planning, sharing, governance

• People should be at the heart of the Greenprint

• Living lab village – testing ideas and providing challenges in a piece of designated woodland

• Research and develop plan to target hard to reach groups

• ‘National Forest Canopy Line’ – means of connecting communities by low carbon transport (Ebikes, cars and canal boats available along the way), and network of charging points/electric taxi ranks.

• Opportunity to scope new approach to community wellbeing through learning and wellness hub linked to Forest

• National Forest University • Community Greenprints • Think about where and what is the

Forest in 100 and 200 years’ time

Economy • For the NFC to be more of a key partner for business and organisations (not just tree planting projects)

• Promote the story of the National Forest better – origins, achievements, future plans

• Working with businesses to strengthen their contribution to the Greenprint. Will also support circular economy ambitions.

• Plant more visible trees to bring the Forest into urban areas – physically and emotionally

• Focus on cultural change – pride in place

• Education for young people • Networking for businesses • Localism – encourage, raise

awareness, build networks • Green Enterprise Zone – underpinned

by circular economy and enhancing natural capital

• Demonstration projects eg sustainable transport, integrated walking and cycling.

• Sustainable mobility options

Specific actions were also identified through the discussions with attendees at the National Forest Climate Summit. These focused on six strategic areas as offering the greatest opportunities:

1. Collaborate under the National Forest brand to harness partnership effort and deliver change.

2. Scale up tree planting, especially in urban areas and as part of business diversification. Opportunity to expand influence beyond the National Forest boundary.

3. Agree and deliver the policy changes required.

4. Research, training, investment and innovation to tackle problems.

5. Green the economy, reduce travel and carbon and generate renewable energy.

6. Create awareness and engagement through communications and public education.

In addition, respondents to the online survey identified the following eight areas as offering the greatest opportunities for action:

1. Public education and grassroots engagement projects.

2. Resilient habitat network and protecting green space.

3. Cross boundary working and/or expansion of National Forest beyond its current boundary.

4. Developing woodlands for the future – improving resilience of trees and woodlands to climate change.

5. Influencing planning to deliver green infrastructure and accessible woods close to where people live (including through neighbourhood planning).

6. Making urban environments more healthy and pleasant.

7. Biodiversity offsetting.

8. Government support and incentives.

What we will do

The discussions on suggestions for action highlighted many of the areas already under development. To move this forward, we will: • Work with partners to prioritise some short, medium and long-term actions.

• Review the NFC funding, support and policy activities to align better to the needs of the

Greenprint. In light of COVID-19 we will focus on those funding and support mechanisms that can best generate a green recovery alongside delivery of the vision.

• Facilitate an annual forum and associated events to support networking between partners. At the NFC, we will work with partners to develop action plans for those areas that we are in a position to lead. We will support partners to identify actions that they can lead to help deliver the vision.

5. General comments and observations During the consultation exercise, a range of additional cross-cutting points and general observations were made by stakeholders. These are felt to add significantly to the thinking and will be taken on board as part of the next iteration: • Ensure that the links and overlaps between the three themes are visible and explicit in the

Greenprint.

• There is a bias towards the physical or tangible in the current iteration of the Greenprint. This needs to be rebalanced through use of the narrative, targets etc to encompass more of the intangible benefits.

• The language and definitions need to be comprehensible to stakeholders for both clarity and partner buy-in.

• Low carbon transport is a critical area of activity and needs to be addressed more explicitly in the vision.

• Planning policy will be a key delivery mechanism and influencing this positively will be critical to success.

• Education does not currently come through strongly enough in the vision and is a vital part of both sustainable living and sustainable business.

• The Greenprint delivery should include horizon scanning to project forward what the changes and challenges in future might look like. For example, moving from 20% to 33% forest cover will have implications for land use, economy, sense of place etc.

• Partnership will be central to delivery of the Greenprint. The National Forest Company (NFC) will be a key coordinating partner with local authorities being another important catalyst for coordination. There will also be conflicting agendas, and these will need to be better understood and aligned to deal with potential conflicts.

• It will be important to build on and learn from the success of existing assets and groups, to extend this practice into other areas.

• Use a suite of indicators instead of a single measure in some of the metrics

What we will do

In the next iteration of the Greenprint, we will: • Clearly demonstrate how themes and action areas are interconnected eg through case

studies

• Help people to visualise what success might look like

• Explicitly address active travel, low carbon transport and education as key areas of omission within the Greenprint

• Ensure that sense of place and local identity, planning policy, and behaviour change have a more prominent place in the vision

The NFC will provide a leadership role and help partners to set the agenda, but success will require the energy and commitment of all partners. A clearer forum for leadership or governance for the National Forest may be required to oversee the continued development and delivery of the vision and we will work with partners to co-create a new governance model for the Forest.

6. Next Steps The discussions and comments from all the workshops and online have generated valuable feedback to test and refine our thinking about the Greenprint and what it needs to say to convey our ambitions for the National Forest over the next 25 years. We would like to thank all stakeholders for taking part and contributing a range of different views. Taking on board the feedback received from stakeholders, we are now developing the second iteration of the Greenprint. This will be web-based, providing greater opportunity to showcase the vision in a more dynamic and imaginative way. We are aiming for this to be launched in autumn 2020, subject to restrictions as a result of COVID-19. We are also working with a range of local and national experts to agree outcomes and establish appropriate metrics and baseline data for these. This work will be included in the next iteration of the vision. One of the issues touched on during the consultation was the National Forest boundary and whether this should be changed. The boundary was agreed with Government in 1991 following a detailed consultation exercise with agencies and communities, and follows natural boundary features including roads, water courses and landscape. Maintaining a consistent boundary has been one of the ways that the National Forest has developed a sense of identity, been able to focus resources and demonstrate progress towards its vision. The current position is that the rationale for the 200 square mile boundary is still strong, and that any changes would detract from delivering the ambitious vision. However, the need for greater flexibility to support activity outside the boundary that will benefit the National Forest’s businesses, residents and visitors, as well as the important role the National Forest plays as a national and international exemplar should come through clearly in the vision.

The vision aims to galvanise people around a shared sense of the future for the National Forest. A shared vision will help to foster greater alignment between the strategies of different organisations within the Forest. As new strategies emerge, whether these are for transport, the environment, planning or education, there will be a greater degree of coherence to actions taken across the National Forest. It is also intended to develop new ways of working together, a clearer sense of purpose and more effective delivery. As a result, we are planning a new annual forum and governance for the National Forest where we can discuss progress, explore future plans and develop new ideas and partnerships. We will also be working with partners to develop a suite of campaigns and delivery plans to realise the vision. These will support a green recovery as we move out of the coronavirus pandemic. We will be in touch with a further update in September 2020 and look forward to continuing to develop and deliver the vision together. If you have any further views on this paper, please contact the National Forest Company at: greenprint@nationalforest.org National Forest Company 06 July 2020

Annex 1 - List of Participating Organisations Members of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, Her Majesty’s Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire and Lord Lieutenant of Leicestershire, and Deputy Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire, landowners, and representatives of the following organisations participated in the National Forest’s 25-Year Vision consultation.

Active Derbyshire Groundwork Creswell, Ashfield and Mansfield

Severn Trent PLC

Aggregate Industries Grown in Britain South Derbyshire CVS

Ashby Civic Society Highfield Drinks Group South Derbyshire District Council

Ashby de la Zouch Town Council Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council Staffordshire County Council

Ashmead Price Horseshoe Cottage Farm Staffordshire Wildlife Trust

Barton Marina Instar Staunton Harold Estate

Bradgate Park Trust James Latham PLC Stephenson College

Bradley and Clark Consulting Leicester and Leicestershire Local Enterprise Partnership

Support Staffordshire

Burton & District Chamber of Commerce

Leicester City Council Sustrans East Midlands

Burton and South Derbyshire College Leicester City in the Community The Chilterns Conservation Board

Campaign to Protect Rural England Leicester-Shire & Rutland Sport The Conservation Volunteers

Canal & River Trust Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust The Heart of England Forest

Charnwood Arts Leicestershire County Council The Land Trust

Charnwood Borough Council Leicestershire Promotions Limited The National Forest Adventure Farm

Charnwood Forest Landscape Partnership

Lichfield District Council The National Forest Charitable Trust

Chris Wait & Associates Lockhart Garratt The National Memorial Arboretum

Cinos Loughborough University The National Trust

CLA Marston’s Brewery & Visitor Centre The Ramblers Association

Community Education & Enterprise Projects (CEEP)

Midlands Engine The Royal Forestry Society

Confor National Farmers Union The Tree Council

Conkers National Forest Ebike Holidays Ltd The Way Design

Country Land & Business Association National Lottery Community Fund The Woodland Trust

Davines UK National Lottery Heritage Fund Tilhill Forestry

Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre Natural England Tollgate Brewery

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

North West Leicestershire District Council Toyota Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd

Derbyshire County Council North York Moors National Park Authority Transforming the Trent Valley

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire Forest Education Network

Trent and Dove Housing

East Midlands Airport Octopus Energy Twycross Zoo

East Midlands Chamber of Commerce P A Wright & Sons University of Derby

East Staffordshire Borough Council Reabrook Limited University of Leicester

Fisher German LLP Roger Bullivant Limited University of Sheffield

Forest Holidays Rolls Royce Viva Consulting Limited

Forest Schools Association Rosliston Forestry Centre Youth Landscapers

Forestry Commission Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Zoocha Digital Agency

FPCR Environment and Design Limited Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Greenwood Days RSA