NEMT Forestry Questionnaire

Dave Windle

Introduction

This section presents an analysis of the 20 replies to the forestry questionnaire sent out on 23/09/2021. The original questions are left in white, and a compilation of the various replies is added in black.

Analysis of replies

A number of people have pointed out that much is changing in this area and that FLS (Forestry Land Scotland is the new name for what used to be known as the Forestry Commission) has been improving forestry for some years. This is true, particularly concerning the planting of native species. The purpose of the questionnaire is to guide NEMT policy over the coming years, not to criticise FLS. However, some of the private estates do need to catch up.

General

From a walker’s perspective, how do Scotland’s forests compare with those in other countries, e.g., Switzerland or Canada? A range of opinions, from quite well /slightly better to pretty badly. They are seen as more managed with more non-native planting; small and fragmented, e.g., Ballochbuie and Glen Tanar are too small to support a viable population of capercaillie.

Should FLS change the balance in its forests to encourage more native trees and fewer commercial trees, accepting that this will result in increased costs, ultimately born by taxpayers? All agree. Many note the need for a sensible balance that is location dependent. Need to remember that the UK is less than 25% self-sufficient in timber and that we should try to produce more ourselves.

Should FLS take more care of heritage assets, e.g., ruined sheilings, when planting? All agree.

Should FLS be setting biodiversity targets for its forests? All agree.

Do you think that carbon offsetting (where companies, e.g., BrewDog, buy land to plant trees and then claim carbon neutrality, rather than actually reducing their own emissions) is a valid use of Scotland’s land? Generally, the replies are negative, describing offsetting as a myth, complete con or nonsensical with too much scope for corporate shenanigans. The companies can’t be trusted and it’s all just greenwash. Comments are: – Govt. would need to legislate to ensure adequate direct reduction of emissions; reducing emissions is the only sustainable solution; OK if done by regeneration of native species. However, don’t be blind to the end results, even if planted for the “wrong” reasons, new woodlands provide many benefits.

Should we be paying more attention to the role of trees in reducing flooding and improving water quality? All agree – combined with increased beaver activity should make a significant improvement. If necessary, pay compensation to the landowner.

Do you think that the impact of forestry on the rural economy is important? There are two themes; not much impact as contractor workforces tend to be non-local and dispersed; and combined with eco-tourism and mountain biking, forests have the potential to make a large impact. One of our respondents suggests that it is much larger than we appreciate – something for us to research, possibly distinguishing between i) planting and any fencing, ii) management including thinning and deer culling and iii) felling.

What aspects of current forest management annoy you most, e.g., clear-fell “eyesores”, access obstructions such as fences and/or machinery ruts, lack of facilities such as parking, lack of forest road drainage? Most object to the thoughtless desecration visible after clear felling is complete, e.g., grossly disturbed ground, deep machinery ruts, abandoned metal, inability to grasp the nettle of managing herbivore numbers. Tree guards and stakes not being removed.

Comments
We need to move towards a basic sustainable forest ecosystem.
We need more scientific evidence to inform decisions.
Most important to not plant on areas of peat as it is more effective at carbon capture.
Woodland corridors for wildlife are important.
Scots pine forests with spaces between the trees are much better than dense stands of Sitka spruce.
Should be a condition of extraction that ground is repaired as far as practicable.

Regeneration vs Planting of native species

Many charities are replanting both trees and montane scrub, while other people argue that with improved deer control this habitat will return by itself, producing a more natural forest.

On a scale of 1-5, would you support planting of native trees and scrub (1 = not at all, leave to regeneration; 5 = definitely support planting)? All numbers covered, with an average of 3 – 4 and 5 x 5s.

Comments
Plant native trees along water courses and paths but leave main stands as commercial species.
Dependent on local circumstances, sometimes even plantation planting is appropriate.
Would like to see more evidence.
Many replies recognise the importance of managing deer numbers – culling deer clearly does the job, avoids plastic debris and creates a more complete ecosystem.
Mar Lodge is quoted as trying to do a great job, but it is a long term process, also Glen Feshie.
Make more use of combination of natural regeneration and limited planting of native species
Planting is sometimes needed to kick start regeneration on “abused” land.
Should not replace effective regeneration where it is workable.
Montane scrub is a special case.
Let’s be practical rather than idealistic.

Effects on the landscape

Do you think that certain areas should be reserved for non-planting in order to preserve open landscape?

Do you think that when new forest areas are being created, either by regeneration or planting, specific areas should be left to create viewpoints and subsequently maintained by occasional felling, accepting that this will increase costs?

Many agree but many suggest that clearings are a natural feature of forests and that this should be left to nature. There is no need to control, verging on over-management. Our current open landscape is an artefact of managing the land for deer and grouse. Why should we preserve this snapshot in time?

Good places for viewpoints and to preserve an open landscape are difficult to pinpoint as much is in the eye of the beholder.

Should we campaign for better management, e.g., shielding of clear felling, smaller areas of clear felling?

All agree. Comments include removal of old fencing no longer needed and smaller patches of clear felling.

Should there be better use of brash to reduce the deep ruts caused by large forestry machinery?

All agree. This is currently FLS policy but often doesn’t seem to get translated into actions when contractors are harvesting.

Comments
All agree that extensive areas of clear felling can be very ugly – different forestry is appropriate in different areas – better management is critical whatever the cost.
Forests are a highly visible part of the landscape which should be considered when planting.
Square blocks of commercial forestry are visually unattractive in landscape terms.
Should focus on the carbon capture and biodiversity aspects rather than what humans like to see.

Recreation and Access

On a scale of 1 – 5 (1 = very poor; 5 = very good), how good a job does FLS do in providing car parking, picnic areas and trails in their forests? 3 – 4 with 2 x 5 and 1 x 2

What more facilities would you like to see in forests? Generally, more paths, toilets, and car parking in both public and private forests. Some desire for litter bins, picnic facilities and more map boards.

When planning a walk do you try to avoid a route that leads through a “long forest tunnel”? All agree with the odd proviso that some tree walks are good too.

Comments
Recreation on foot is now economically very important and has substantial health benefits.
Thought needs to be given to maintaining paths during forest expansion.
Fences no longer used should be removed

Conclusions

As you have worked through the questions above, can you think of an example of a well-managed forest in the North East that is a pleasure to visit? Ballochbuie, Glen Tanar, Abernethy, Burn O’ Vat, Cnoc/Cambus O’ May, Bennachie, Logie Coldstone, Kirkhill, Leuchars Moss, Glen Feshie, semi natural forest along the east side of Loch Lomond, Woodland Trust site at Den Wood, Oldmeldrum, which although small does a good job.

Would you be interested in learning more about forestry via the NEMT magazine Mountain Views? Enough support for the editor to take note. Among other items, the economics of forestry are changing rapidly due to the growth of the wood chip industry (sustainable fuel).

(20 replies)

Cairngorm treeline needs work...      ©Peter Mulligan CC BY-SA 2.0

Please let the webmaster know if there are problems with viewing these pages or with the links they contain.