“It is more important than ever to focus the debate on tree planting around what trees are planted and where, and how in the process we can support a plethora of biodiversity, social and economic benefits as we look to address the climate crisis.”
I fully support the conclusion of Claire Taylor's recent article in The Herald - but I wouldn’t agree with all the arguments she uses to get there.
Her point about supporting the rural economy is an important one. Evidence from agricultural advisers is that modern productive forestry can deliver greater income to a land-owner than sheep farming, and that’s before the unprecedented rises we’re seen this year in timber prices. This doesn’t mean all farmers should be retrained as foresters, but it does mean farmers should actively consider diversifying through tree planting and be able to claim the carbon benefit for doing that.
More than 25,000 people in Scotland are employed in the forestry and wood processing sector and many of their employers are family-owned businesses which provide secure and relatively well-paid jobs in rural areas, many with limited employment opportunities. Traditionally farming was seen as the mainstay of rural communities, these days there are many who work in the forestry sector.
New forests have a variety of tree species and always provide a broad range of benefits in accordance with robust standards that have been developed with environmental groups. The evidence from research is clear that even the areas planted to produce renewable supplies of wood are not “dead zones for biodiversity”.
Confor’s report last year, Biodiversity, Forestry and Wood, analysed the available evidence and gathered case studies of good practice. It demonstrated the biodiversity benefits of modern forestry and of managing woodlands to produce wood. Many iconic species thrive in conifer trees, from threatened red squirrels to the reintroduced white-tailed sea eagle, and the report invited people to think about the forest floor and the range of insects and plants that can thrive on it.
The report showed that well-managed productive woodland has as much variety as unmanaged “native” woodland. If we want to tackle biodiversity loss, then we need to do more to protect and manage that latter valuable resource. A planted new woodland has potential, but that potential isn’t fully realised unless that woodland is actively managed.
And the benefits of shelter for grazing animals comes from all types of trees, not just native. Shelter belts are often composed mainly of conifers as they grow more quickly, providing shelter sooner. I try to encourage farmers to think a bit bigger than a shelter belt, because then it’s possible to have a woodland that can grow wood as well as maintain shelter over time.
Achieving net zero by 2045 will be hugely challenging, and while tree planting will play a vital role we shouldn’t forget the increasingly important role of wood products in decarbonising sectors like house-building and construction. Wood has low embodied energy, is easily reused and recycled and comes from an infinitely renewable source – the forest.
Governments globally are waking up to the fact that using more wood instead of concrete and steel, brick or plastic will help reduce carbon. Unfortunately, while world demand for wood is forecast to increase hugely in the coming decades, very few countries are growing more trees – Scotland is an honourable exception. As COP26 rolls into town we should shout out that Scotland is planting more than 80% of all new woodland in the UK and that it’s the one country which is investing in producing more wood.
Thriving rural economies, achieving net zero and promoting biodiversity are all important, but they aren’t either-or options. Modern forestry really can deliver a plethora of biodiversity, social and economic benefits as we look to address the climate crisis.
Stuart Goodall is Chief Executive of Confor: promoting forestry and wood
For more information, visit www.confor.org.uk
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here