Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
NAME_1 is expected to lay out plans where some areas of NAME_2 forest could be transferred to the private sector or to not for profit organisations. But she has already ruled out the widespread sale of NAME_2 woodlands. Forestry Commission Wales said it would explore the feasibility of transfer to the private sector case by case. The minister told BBC Radio Wales she plans to "compensate" the public by buying new land for new planting or management if any forest was sold off on a case-by-case basis. "I don't want any stagnancy in the forest estate. I want it to work for public benefit whether that's economic or environmental or access benefit," she said. "It's my view there should be no reduction in the publicly owned estate and I have asked the Forestry Commission to look at how it can make that estate work harder, provide a better return

Summary:
1. There will be no reduction in the size of wales' forests, the environment minister has said.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
