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)
NEMT Front
Page | Previous Page | Volume
Index Page | Next Page | Journal
Index Page
Please let the webmaster know
if there are problems with viewing these pages or with the links they
contain.