Let’s end public subsidies for commercial conifer tree-planting

The Scottish and UK Governments spend a significant amount of public money to incentivise tree planting and woodland expansion in the form of grants and tax reliefs.

The policy basis for this is extensive, as reflected by Scotland having some of the world’s most ambitious net zero targets and prioritising national outcomes such as nature restoration, economic prosperity, and societal wellbeing.

The utility of trees extends well beyond their commercial value and these wider benefits – such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity improvement and recreation – have come increasingly to the fore. In the present context of constrained public finances and the continuing impact of the climate and biodiversity crises, it is sensible to consider how best to allocate limited resources to fulfil critical policy objectives.

Despite the importance of forests and woodlands, to date there has been no analysis of the considerable public monies that are given to landowners to plant trees and the public benefits received. In response to this knowledge gap, the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) undertook a review of public financial support for tree planting and forestry. A public call for views garnered 45 responses from a range of academics, community interest groups, members of industry, public sector agencies, non-profits, sector representatives, and members of the public. A committee of RSE Fellows, supplemented by external expertise, then analysed the responses and research evidence, developing a set of recommendations for policy-makers to consider.

Based on the evidence, the report concludes that subsidising commercial conifer planting is not justified and the potential for the forestry sector to deliver multiple benefits has not been fully realised. This is true across many areas including carbon sequestration, biodiversity, urban environments and rural communities.

The health of the population, and the health of the planet, is reliant on a robust, biologically diverse environment. The role of trees – the right trees in the right place – in improving biodiversity, carbon-capture, and wellbeing in both urban and rural environments cannot be overstated.  

 

That is why the main recommendation of the report is that subsidies for commercial forestry, which are poorer at delivering these needs should be redirected to long term, mixed native tree planting and other benefits. (Prof Ian Wall, FRSE) 

Employment generated by forestry activity (including planting, harvesting and processing) is important, as is the employment generated by visitors and tourists to woodlands. In support of the former, Scotland’s timber processing industry could be supported to improve the added value of its products.

Although trees are often seen as important in the fight against climate change, their ability to capture and store carbon dioxide over the longer term is contingent on a number of factors, many of which were found to be missing in the large-scale commercial operations that dominate Scotland’s forestry sector.

To date there has been no analysis of the considerable public monies that are given to landowners to plant trees and the public benefits received.

The impacts of large-scale forestry operations on biodiversity are multi-faceted. It is clear that planting large,
dense stands of non-native conifers has adverse effects on biodiversity. Commercial operations can, in part, grow to support rich assemblages of plant and animal life when best practice is fully implemented.

Our scarce public funds must be used to maximise benefits for both the public and our environment. We now face the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. We must ensure that our investments in tree planting are done in ways that reduce our carbon emissions without reducing our precious and fragile biodiversity. 

 

We urgently need a coherent strategy to manage the planting of trees in Scotland. The right trees, planted in the right way, in the right places will benefit our climate, our biodiversity and our economy. Getting this wrong will cause damage that we will deeply regret. (Professor Pat Monaghan FRSE)

The effectiveness of the present Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime is examined. EIAs are intended to identify and mitigate potential risks to the environment and people at an early stage in order to avoid adverse impacts.