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.
However, rather than serving as a valuable tool for community consultation and environmental protection and enhancement, EIAs are rare in practice, as the evidence from respondents showed.
It is well-established that human beings benefit from regular interactions with the natural environment, whether in forests
or in urban settings. More could be done to enhance and protect access to trees and to nature in general, particularly in the built environments where such benefits are disproportionately significant.
It is becoming increasingly urgent for Scotland to consider whether its approach to funding tree planting and forestry remains fit for purpose and that available funds are being applied to best effect to meet a range of objectives. Based on the evidence received, the report contends that the continued subsidy of commercial coniferous forestry cannot be justified.
The report makes several recommendations aimed primarily at Scottish Government, its agencies and local government to make best use of scarce resources and promote multifunctional forests and woodlands. This is best achieved through targeted investments supporting discrete interventions.
This report shows that there is untapped potential in the forestry sector. Not only is it vital in environmental terms, but in terms of jobs and wide social services. We need to expand educational opportunities in forestry science and practice to ensure that we seize important opportunities for enhancing rural and urban environments.Scotland produces more timber than any other UK nation, and there is untapped potential for job creation, production of a broader range of timber products and crucially, carbon sequestration. (Prof Des Thompson FRSE)
The report’s recommendations are presented below, according to topic:
1. Scottish Government should discontinue subsidies for coniferous commercial tree planting. |
|||||||||||||||
2. In discontinuing these subsidies, Scottish Government should redirect the money that is saved towards tree planting that is designed to provide long term carbon sequestration, biodiversity and public benefits. |
|||||||||||||||
3. The UK Government should calculate and report on the total cost of tax reliefs for woodlands, stating the purpose of the reliefs and evaluating them in respect of their cost effectiveness in meeting those objectives. 4. Scottish Government should require and empower the Enterprise Agencies to use their resources – both skills and financial – to assist the Scottish timber industry in adding value to raw timber by supporting firms to develop and expand mass timber products.
|
Leave a Reply