Re-thinking tree planting?

I find I am, to some extent, on a similar wavelength to Andy Byfield in his Guardian piece on tree planting. Perhaps more so in the light of recent developments that emphasise the need to think how we can deliver more resilient landscapes in the face of growing impacts from climate, pests and disease, and changes in both land use and land management practices. But, I do remain a little more optimistic about the role that planting new native trees and woods can play. Tree planting is usually a very visible activity and one which can be used as a way of engaging and enthusing people about the natural environment, whilst the wider work of protecting our valuable ancient woods and the major programmes of restoring ancient woods that were damaged by conifer planting in recent times continues too, day in and day out. Maybe there is some work to do to put the importance of ‘protecting and restoring’ on a more even footing with tree planting in the public’s mind?

However, back to tree planting. The case for a more well thought out approach to woodland expansion has already been well made by the Independent Panel on Forestry in their report and recommendations to Government. They clearly embrace the Lawton principles, now enshrined in the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper and champion the role that new woodland must play in supporting biodiversity, reversing fragmentation and building better habitat networks.

Our own submission to the recent call from the Forestry Commission for views on the way forward for woodland expansion in England reinforces this. I have included an extract here, based on part of our submission, to illustrate that Andy Byfield is not alone in seeking to prompt a conversation about a more considered approach, one that builds on the common shorthand phrase ‘right tree, right place’:

“Key to understanding the need for more woodland in the UK is understanding the locational dependency of many of the benefits that trees and woods can deliver. These wider public goods delivered by the natural environment are often referred to today as ‘ecosystem services’.  Whilst not true of all, many of these benefits rely on choosing the right location and configuration of woodland in relation to the ‘service’ being delivered and interactions with other land uses and habitats. In identifying the need for an increase in tree and forest cover we should be clear about the benefits and be specific about how and where they are delivered. It is this locational understanding which brings real benefits from tree cover. Not tree planting for its own sake, but tree planting because it achieves real value for society and for the environment.

Woodland is a rich and important terrestrial habitat. Ancient woodland and ancient trees in particular support a wide range of wildlife from soil organisms to fungi, a spectacular array of plants, invertebrates, small mammals and birds.  Woodland creation can contribute to buffering existing habitat, and to the development of better functioning and more resilient habitat networks.

This is clearly recognised in the Natural Environment White Paper and is now a common characteristic of the work underway on Nature Improvement Areas, Local Nature Partnerships and in the revision of Natural Character Areas. The case for a significant expansion of native woodland is well supported by a range of conservation interests – but this support is often rightly qualified by the desire to ensure that existing high value open habitats and valued cultural features are not damaged by planting and that the guiding principles of building better habitat networks underpins the overall approach.”

But it’s important not to oversimplify the question. Whilst many people may have an aspiration to expand our trees and woods there are many more who own or manage the land, who have objectives and views of the world which will differ. Farming, food security, traditional practices, other habitats, recreation, carbon, energy, development… and on and on; all competing for land use.  To support the vision of a landscape rich in trees and woodland we have to understand where that vision sits in the context of the wider landscape, the politics of land use, the motivations of land owners, and the external and changing environment.  

The Government are due to respond to the Panel’s recommendations in January. I for one would be more than happy to see a strong welcome for the Panel’s recommendations on a major increase in woodland expansion being set clearly in the context of the Natural Environment White Paper and Lawton principles. That will take a bit of joined up thinking in Defra. I can only hope that the current focus on ash disease does not completely eclipse their capacity to think for the medium term too.

It’s not too late to add your voice to the many already calling on the Government to accept the Panel’s recommendations and help to secure the future for our trees, woods and forests.

Austin Brady, Head of Conservation


About Austin Brady

Director of Conservation (UK) at the Woodland Trust
This entry was posted in Austin's blog, Climate Change, Conservation, Forests Report, Planting and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Re-thinking tree planting?

  1. Pingback: Link tag Tuesday #106 – a hiking notebook, bottled inks and the Mayans

  2. Pingback: Chalara ash dieback – what next? | Woodland Matters

  3. Peter Wilding says:

    Austin’s comment here is understandable.

    It is also very hard at the moment to assess what ought to be planted for economic purposes. Climate change means that species planted now may turn out to be the wrong ones from the point of view of wood-product outputs in 30 to 50 years time. Markets also are liable to change. Does the imminent energy crisis mean that firewood will become the most sought after woodland product? If so, what species will be the most productive for logs? for wood pellets? or for biochar? For an amenity organisation like the Woodland Trust, it’s better not to try and guess the answers, but instead to prioritise the saving of ancient woodland and to promote the creation of new native broadleaved woodlands having a wide range of tree species.

  4. Imogen Radford says:

    woodland expansion needs to include woodland for economic benefit, for true sustainable multipurpose forestry

    • Austin Brady says:

      Thanks Imogen – I agree.
      Planting trees for the prime purpose of economic benefit is outside the scope of an organisation like the Woodland Trust, but we have no objection to others playing their part to deliver the kind of balance that you suggest. As I said, provided that tree planting of whatever kind does not damage “existing high value open habitats and valued cultural features” then there is room for a mixed approach here. This is reinforced by the Woodland Trust being fully signed up to all of the Independent Panel on Forestry’s recommendations, and supportive of the idea of reinvigorating a woodland culture. We are ready to play our part in delivering on the opportunities for protecting and restoring ancient woodalnd, and creating new native woods that help build bigger and better habitat networks that will be more robust. We leave it to others to deliver directly on the economic opportunities, but don’t forget that we do generate income from managing our own woods and contribute a significant sum into the rural economy employing contractors who assist us in a wide range of management and maintenance activity across our 20,000 hectares.

Sorry, comments are closed as we have moved to a new site:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s