.png)
2 hours ago
6
Last week you published a well-balanced piece on the success story that is Kielder Forest (How England’s largest forest went from commodity to conservation haven, 2 June). At the heart of this achievement has been learning from the planting mistakes of the 1970s. Today Kielder is successful both as a commercial forest, producing 25% of England’s homegrown timber, and in its biodiversity – providing habitat for red squirrels, voles and ospreys, for example.
It was therefore disappointing to read your article on commercial forests this week (Tax-break trees: how woodland became a store of wealth for the rich, 7 June). Disappointing because it contained an unchallenged and outdated trope from Camilla Fowler, chair of the Lilliesleaf, Ashkirk and Midlem community council, who stated: “This kind of forestry scars the landscape and replaces it with monocultural, dark trees that harms our biodiversity.”
It would be illegal today in both Scotland and England to plant a monoculture, and it does not happen; you cannot plant a forest that contains 100% conifer, even if they are of different species.
One of the newest productive forests planted in England is at Doddington, Northumberland, where I planted one of the first trees. Here the planting mix on 354 hectares is 41% Sitka spruce, 20% native broadleaves, 15% managed priority habitat, 13% Scots pine/native broadleaves, 10% open land and 1% mixed conifer.
Both north and south of the border, we face a housing crisis which can only be fully addressed by building more homes. These will need timber for construction. Opponents of productive forestry should bring themselves up to date with modern forestry planting practices while being mindful of the fact that you cannot live in a sheep.
Paul Brannen
Non-executive commissioner, Forestry Commission
While your article on private investors using tax breaks to support tree-planting correctly points out that productive forest expansion in southern Scotland financed in this way must not ignore local conservation interests, it fails to consider the other side of the argument on the potential environmental impact of not planting productive trees.
Studies on timber consumption show that wealthy nations are responsible for global forest loss beyond their borders, causing biodiversity loss through demand for timber products grown in other countries, and are in effect “exporting extinction” (Wiebe & Wilcove 2025, Nature 639: 389–394).
The UK, as the world’s second biggest importer of timber products, is effectively “offshoring” its timber supplies, with consequences for the world’s remaining natural forests. While it may be irritating to see private investors using forest expansion as a means of reducing tax, it needs to be remembered that those investing in forests today may never see the final return when the benefits are only realised up to half a century into the future; hence why support through tax relief is necessary.
While safeguarding the natural environment remains vitally important, spare a thought where all the wood that is used for everything from building our homes to cardboard packaging comes from.
Dr Andrew Cameron
Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen
Your article accurately pinpoints the reason for the rapid and overwhelming change in the Scottish Borders landscape, from farmland to monoculture Sitka spruce plantation and the associated negative effects on employment, housing and community. The pursuit of profit is creating new clearances. In Dumfries and Galloway, the Save Warblaw Action Group is campaigning to prevent the planting of 214 hectares of Sitka on a peatland hill which adjoins the former mill town of Langholm.
The forestry proposal is riding roughshod over our community, with the aim of planting monoculture on to peatland which is already sequestering carbon. If improving biodiversity and combating climate change were truly the goal, the plans would be very different.
It is time for the Scottish government to review its forestry policy, which is enriching the already super-rich at the expense of nature and of struggling rural communities.
Jane Gifford
Save Warblaw Action Group
