Official Report 450KB pdf
Under agenda item 2, as part of an information-gathering exercise for committee members, we will hear from the recently established woodland expansion advisory group. I welcome the witnesses: Dr Andrew Barbour, the group’s chair; Jo Ellis, a land use and climate change policy adviser; and Bob McIntosh, the Forestry Commission Scotland’s director.
I presume that everyone has a copy of the committee’s briefing, which sets out the background to the establishment of the group. Do members have any questions on why that was done? Is everyone clear about that?
We will go on to that.
It is wrong of me to ask the questions.
We most certainly will try to look at such issues. As I said, we are undertaking an information-gathering exercise. I am sure that members will raise specific points.
The forestry side recognised that the planting targets were not being met. One or two situations also arose in which conflict—for want of a better word—occurred, particularly between farming and forestry interests.
The minister’s evidence today was that planting has increased over the past two or three years, but must increase by a good deal more. Is there room for increased conflict between different interests over land use?
It is fair to say that there is room for more conflict. The group’s job is to find a route through that and to minimise conflict or avoid it completely. We will be judged on what we produce and on how successful we are.
I open the session to members’ questions.
I thank Dr Barbour for his introduction and the clerks for the briefing paper. Has the group been given a remit to focus on putting a certain percentage of land to commercial planting rather than what the minister referred to as traditional woodland, or is the group looking purely at expanding woodland plantation?
Our approach has been to set up work programmes that will look at the barriers to creating different types of woodland. We will consider how different types of woodland complement existing land uses. In that mix, commercial softwood plantation establishment is being considered.
Other panel members may of course speak if they wish to add to Andrew Barbour’s answers—they do not appear to wish to speak yet.
On a slightly different but related tack, I was alarmed when the minister said—I think that I picked him up right—that the Government was concerned about the planting hectares that were lost in replanting. I am concerned about that because of an issue that affects all of us who live in rural areas.
No—I absolutely appreciate the concerns. Bob McIntosh will talk about the issue.
Government policy is clear that the wall-to-wall plantations of the past are a thing of the past. When the time comes to fell and restructure such plantations, the woodland areas will sometimes be pulled back to create a much more acceptable design of the landscape and to create more diversity. That is entirely necessary to create a diverse forest from even-aged plantations.
Thank you. I have no further questions for the time being, convener.
In the previous evidence session with the minister, we heard that restructuring in the past four or five years has meant that we have lost about 24,500 hectares, so the issue is significant.
We have identified that as an issue to look at. Indeed, Angus McCall is a member of the group and I do not think that he would let us not think about it. We have started to look at barriers to participation in woodland creation across a range of different land occupier and ownership types. The tenant situation is one of those, so we will address that straight up.
Putting forestry down as a tenant’s improvement is a thought that has been rattled around before. If he remained the tenant, he would be able to gain a grant and make use of the woods and the harvest and, if he left halfway through, it would be seen as a tenant’s improvement. Has that been considered yet?
We have not specifically considered that aspect, but that is a situation that we will have to deal with because, as we all know, it can be a thorny issue.
In that context, can I ask about the crofter forestry scheme? It has been in existence since, I think, 1994, so it has had some time to kick in. It gives tenants and owner-occupiers the right to grow trees on crofts. Are you likely to take evidence on that? Could it help us to deal with the farming interests in relation to gaining value?
We will take evidence on those matters. Jo Ellis might like to comment on what we are planning.
At the next meeting of the group, which is in early December, we will take evidence from the Scottish Crofting Federation, which will make a presentation. The Crofting Commission will also be there to observe the meeting. The issue is certainly something that we are taking into account. The group recognised early on that it is one interest that is not represented on the group but is a significant land tenure in Scotland.
Indeed. It would be interesting to know how much land has been turned over to forestry on crofts. I recognise that it is a short time since the implementation of the legislation but, nevertheless, it could give us a pointer. Maybe you could provide us with that information in due course.
Yes, we can certainly do that. There has been a significant amount of activity, both by individual crofters planting up their crofts and by crofters who have come together to plant common grazings. Of course, the legislation surrounding who benefits from woodlands in a crofting situation is rather different from that which applies to the normal landlord-tenant relationship, which it is rather more difficult to see a way through.
My question is perhaps best directed to Mr McIntosh, because it concerns the loss and replacement of forestry in relation to onshore wind development.
A few years ago, it was entirely down to the planning authorities: if they gave planning consent for a wind farm that involved removing trees, that was the end of the story. However, we have engaged with our planning colleagues and now have built into the planning guidance and the national planning framework a presumption against removing trees unless there is a good reason for it, and a presumption that, if trees are removed in such a development, there should be compensatory planting. That is not the same as saying that it is an absolute must, but that is the line that local authorities are expected to take in response to the planning guidance when they deal with planning applications for wind farms.
So no sanctions are available to planning authorities if developers do not comply with that policy in any way.
I am not an expert in planning law, but I guess that it may be open to planning authorities to make it a condition of permission for a wind farm development that there be compensatory planting. I am straying outside my knowledge in saying that.
I appreciate that.
Do any of the other witnesses have knowledge of the position?
The fact that there is a requirement for compensatory planting prevents some woodland loss in the first place. Some wind farm developers are considering alternatives to removing all the trees and are going for what we call keyholing—putting the wind farm within the woodland—or changing the forestry to a lower kind that causes less air turbulence. The policy is not only about compensatory planting but has changed the way that woodland is considered as part of wind farm planning applications.
There is normally a trade-off between not removing the trees and having to install taller turbines so that the blades are well above the wind turbulence that the trees cause, which could cause the blades to break.
There are a couple of issues that I wondered whether the group would consider in its work. I am conscious that it has been established fairly recently and, therefore, will not have completed its work yet.
Yes, absolutely. The SEPA representative on our group has already identified it as something that we need to consider. It is part and parcel of the work programme that we will put in place over the next four or five weeks.
The other issue concerns the uses of timber. The timber industries are concerned that, because of the ROC payments, the production of timber for biomass can be treated more favourably than the production of timber for them. They often tell us that there is a conflict of interest. Will you consider that in your work and perhaps make some recommendations about how it might be addressed?
We have not specifically examined that issue. That is partly because, when we consider woodland establishment, we must pay attention to the markets that exist. However, the market for biomass and the market for carcasing need not necessarily influence exactly what somebody plants: the same species of tree can go to the different markets.
It is a big subject, but it is one that is a bit outside the group’s remit. The group is considering where woodland should go, how much there should be and what sort of land it should go on, so what the trees are used for is outside its remit.
It is about the downstream industries and so on.
Our members certainly recognise that we need different kinds of woodland to meet different needs. We do not all focus on one kind of woodland. We recognise that trees can have various productive uses at the end of their time.
Thank you for coming along to give evidence. I have three questions. The first concerns the extensive nature of Ministry of Defence land in Scotland. To what extent will that be factored into the advisory group’s consideration of the big issue of land use in Scotland?
That issue has not been raised, but it is an interesting point. We are happy to take it away and add it to the mix. It might well be raised under our call for views, which is under way. Given the extent of MOD land, I hope that the MOD will contribute. Thank you for the question.
My next question is on a specific aspect of your remit, which is to look at conflict resolution mechanisms in the area. To what extent do you anticipate looking at international best practice?
I will ask Bob McIntosh to answer that. We are mindful of what is happening elsewhere, although we have not specifically considered conflict resolution. The situation with afforestation elsewhere in Europe—except in Ireland—is very different from the UK context. However, I ask Bob McIntosh to comment.
That is the point. Countries in the rest of Europe already have the amount of forest that they want. The average forest cover in EU countries is about 34 per cent, so forest expansion is not a big issue in most of them. They might be looking to us to see how things can be done, because we are one of the few countries in Europe that want to expand the forest resource in a meaningful way.
Thank you. My final question is a process question. I seek an assurance that, when you reach the stage of the public meetings that you intend to hold, which under your current timetable will be next spring, they will reflect, as far as possible, a wide geographic spread. A wide cross-section of people will be interested in coming along to your meetings and it is important that there is an appropriate geographic spread.
Jo Ellis will keep me right here, but seven meetings are planned to try to cover that geographic spread.
We have done some work on the areas where there is likely to be the most potential for woodland expansion, and the meeting locations are based on that. We are focusing on the areas where most of the conflicts will be played out, if they arise. There will be seven meetings and we will set the dates as early as possible so that we can get information out to stakeholders through the steering group and wide advertisement. We want people with an interest to get involved. The meetings will be held in the evenings so that it is easier for people to get to them and take part. The people whom we want to be there do not sit at desks in the daytime but are out farming and planting trees.
Will you expand on that and identify which general areas of the country you are talking about?
The locations that we propose are Dumfries, Ayr, Selkirk, Perth, Huntly, Dingwall and Oban. That is not a perfect geographical spread, but it takes into account most of the areas that have the most potential and the greatest number of people who are likely to engage in the subject.
In considering where it would be possible to expand woodlands, you are looking at the different soil types that exist. I notice that there is quite a preponderance of places in the south of Scotland in your list. Soil types might conflict with things other than agriculture, such as grouse shooting. Are you looking at that? It struck me in previous sessions of Parliament that the east of Scotland and Angus have ideal mineral soils for forest development.
We have certainly considered field sports as a land use with which we must engage and whose interests we must understand—and I reinforce the point about soils, which are critical in growing trees.
Three of your seven public meetings will be in the south of Scotland, and one will be in Oban. Those are the areas in Scotland where there is the most afforestation, as I said. Dumfries and Galloway is already more than 30 per cent planted, which is way ahead of the Government’s overall target.
We are certainly looking at existing forest cover and considering where there might be limitations to increasing it, due to issues of acidification and, potentially, landscape. There is existing work on the matter. We will also look to get the local view on issues such as you talk about in, for example, Argyll or southern Scotland, through the call for views. That is an important part of how we take our work forward. Bob McIntosh might add something.
The James Hutton Institute’s work has been useful, because it takes the whole of Scotland and excludes land that physically cannot grow trees, the best agricultural land and other land where there are constraints because there is an SSSI or because of landscape issues, and then considers what we are left with, which is the areas where it is logical to start looking at where more woodland might go.
Are the majority of your public meetings taking place in those zones?
Yes.
That suggests that you are looking at increasing planting in the areas that have the maximum afforestation in the country. I am not sure that that is where the policy ought to be going.
Outside Galloway, there might be scope in quite a lot of Dumfries and the eastern Borders. I think that we recognise that there is probably limited scope in Galloway for a lot more forestry.
On the location of the meetings, there were practical considerations about how easy places are to get to. Just because I chose those places does not mean that we want woodland around them. It was about getting a balance of areas that met the criteria for having some potential for woodland expansion, areas where there have been issues in the past, which it would be good to air in a public meeting, and areas that are accessible. Please do not think that the locations of the meetings represent the only areas in which we want woodland expansion; the choice of location was purely practical.
Throughout Scotland we have a system of indicative forestry strategies, which are prepared by local authorities. Nearly every local authority has such a strategy or is in the process of preparing one. The aim of the strategies is to get together all the stakeholders in a particular geographical area, such as the Borders, to identify what sort of land should be suitable for planting, where woodlands might go and what sort of forestry development might take place. That has been a highly effective process. There are a number of indicative forestry strategies but, unfortunately, people do not always take a lot of notice of them when it comes to where trees should go. One of the issues that we will consider is whether we can make that process more effective.
I am grateful for your reassurance—thank you.
I certainly noticed that you are not coming to the Central Scotland region.
Yes, there was a sea change in the late 1980s when the tax regime relating to forestry changed. Up until then, someone who planted woodlands could claim tax relief on that. At that stage, the highest tax rates were something like 70 or 80 per cent. Someone who was paying 70, 80 or even 90 per cent income tax would have been pretty silly not to go and plant some trees. Perhaps that pushed things too far as regards planting and where it went, so the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time decided to take forestry out of taxation, which made a big difference to the number of hectares that were planted.
So should we encourage the reintroduction of a tax incentive?
That is an interesting question. It would not, of course, be within the competence of the Scottish Government to do that; we would have to convince the UK Government. There is a view in the forestry sector that a properly constituted tax system that related more to carbon benefits might be an effective way of incentivising forestry and woodland planting but, at the moment, it is not within the competence of the Scottish Government to introduce such a scheme.
I understand that—I was asking whether the UK Government should do that.
Members have no further questions.