Item 1 is the forestry strategy, which we have had on our agenda before. The purpose of including it on today's agenda is to consider the outcome of the public consultation that the Executive has been carrying out on the draft strategy. I am delighted to welcome back the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, Mr John Home Robertson, who has responsibility for forestry. He is accompanied by David Henderson-Howat, chief conservator of the Forestry Commission in Scotland.
Perhaps it is I who should welcome you to the committee on this occasion, convener, but we can gloss over that. I came to Edinburgh last night to be absolutely certain that I would not be late for today's meeting, but anyway, here we are.
It is a well-known word in the Church, I can assure you.
Is it? It takes me back to my O-level Latin. At any rate, we shall use the five-yearly review of Forest Enterprise to ensure that that body is delivering the priorities of the strategy on the Forestry Commission's own land. The Scottish Enterprise cluster strategy is also playing an important part in facilitating and co-ordinating industry development in the areas in which we can take the greatest advantage of forestry's contribution to the local economy.
From the feedback that I have had, I know that the draft forest strategy for Scotland, which is out for consultation, is being well received, certainly in the north-east.
Thank you for your opening remarks. It is very helpful for a member for a constituency such as yours to acknowledge that there is broad support for the objectives that are set out in the draft strategy.
I acknowledge what you say. I know that there are differing views on fencing and afforestation. Groups such as the Deer Commission for Scotland are of the opinion that there are too many deer in Scotland, but I do not subscribe to that view. The Deer Commission has suggested that the fencing grants might be restricted if the deer numbers were reduced to something like seven per hectare, or some ridiculous figure like that. It is suggested that, instead of spending vast sums of money on fencing, Forest Enterprise could spend that money on other activities. What are your views on that?
There are many deer, as you will know from your constituency. I am advised that the optimum sustainable population, both for deer and trees, is five red deer per 100 hectares, or 50 acres per deer. To get down to that level will require the culling of an awful lot of deer. That is being done in some areas. The deer population needs to be managed. I do not think that anybody would be enthusiastic about exterminating deer, as deer are important in the Highlands. This is a question of balance. Even if there are relatively low populations of deer, unless very young trees are protected, planting trees can be a waste of money because they get killed off in the first winter. I am sure that David Henderson-Howat can give more professional advice about that. In certain areas, and on certain types of plantation, there is no alternative to protecting trees with fencing.
I would just make the simple point that it takes just one night's damage to wipe out the trees.
I want to respond to a statement that was made about access to the forests. I do not need to tell you that, in huge areas, timber is coming to the stage at which it requires harvesting to prevent it from being lost altogether. Much of that territory is served by tortuous, winding and substandard single-track roads. Governments used to fund forest-access roads, but that is no longer the case. That creates a problem for local authorities in rural Scotland, where the roads are deteriorating at too fast a rate for them to respond to. Is there some way in which local authorities, Forest Enterprise and fish farms might co-operate to fund jointly the improvements that are required to those roads?
That is a big problem. Scottish forests produce about 400 million cu m of timber, a figure that will double in the next 10 or 15 years. That will mean that there will be a huge number of vehicle movements on some of the smallest and most remote roads in Scotland. That is why we are keen to work up alternatives to road transport, whether that means moving the timber by sea or by rail.
I emphasise the point that solutions to the general problem can be found locally by finding ways of using roads jointly and by identifying roads for upgrading. Of course, I accept that roads and bridges can be upgraded only if money is available.
It might be useful if Forest Enterprise, the local authority and the other commercial operators in those remote areas got together to come to some sort of agreement on jointly funding some of the required improvements.
We want to promote constructive discussion. I would like timber from islands such as Raasay and Skye to be taken by sea to the railhead at Kyle and shifted from there. We can help to promote that. There are things that we can do to promote that, but it is disappointing that English Welsh and Scottish Railway seems less than enthusiastic about taking that opportunity. We want to follow that up.
That is commendable. However, the point is that getting the timber to the harbour for loading will destroy sections of substandard single-track road. What you say is acceptable and correct. Transporting timber by rail would solve a lot of problems.
I understand the point that getting it to the railhead would involve a journey by truck. That point is well understood.
When the committee was out and about, it took evidence up in Assynt, where native woodland schemes were being discussed. Although people there were happy to plant native woodland, they felt that the balance between replanting native woodland and planting trees that could be used as a cash crop was not quite right. Has any thought been given to the kind of species that could be planted? In Scotland, Sitka spruce tends to be used as a cash crop. Has there been any attempt to find alternative species that might fit in better with the native woodland? Will money be available to people who want to plant such trees with a view to harvesting them in future years?
We must try to strike a balance. Clearly, it is desirable that there should be as much planting as possible of native species. That means Scots pine, as well as broad-leaved trees. The figures that I have to hand indicate that each year 4,000 hectares of conifers, 4,000 hectares of broad-leaved trees and 2,000 hectares of Scots pine are planted. The balance is shifting in favour of native species, which is welcome.
A considerable amount of work is being done on this by Highland Birch Woods, for example. We also have the Scottish hardwood timber market development group. Those bodies are seeking to explore ways in which we can add value to some of our native species through processing. That is partly a question of how the trees are grown. To put it very simply, if we grow a straight tree, it is more likely to be usable. We need to manage trees properly for quality and to develop appropriate processing techniques and marketing to add value.
That is good, because I understand that much of the hardwood that we grow is used for fuel and is not processed. We import most of the hardwood that we need for furniture and the like. That seems wasteful. We have this resource and we could make better use of it.
Exactly. There are one or two excellent examples of places that are taking hardwood that would otherwise be dismissed as fuel wood and, through good craftsmanship, are turning it into first-class furniture.
During visits over the past year, I have seen some good examples of that. David Henderson-Howat has referred to Highland Birch Woods, which is doing some good work in the Highlands and at Munlochy. I remember seeing the work that it is doing on birch in particular. In the Borders we have Woodschool and other initiatives. Until recently, the timber that they are using would, as Rhoda Grant said, have been used as firewood and would have gone up in smoke. Potentially very valuable timber can be made into furniture, into finishes inside buildings and a range of other things, which could create jobs in rural areas. I hope that we can use our new Scottish Parliament building as a shopfront for Scottish timber.
I welcome the commitment to the better use of woodland by communities. The minister spoke of Limerigg, in my constituency, which is a good example of people living alongside forests and having a real involvement with them. Some of the developments of the past couple of years have led to genuine ownership of local forests and to much work being done in education. There is an opportunity to develop that approach in my constituency and in other areas, and there are good examples of economic development and the creation of jobs to allow communities to participate in the development of the local forest. Such developments should be sustainable in rural areas, so that people will not only enjoy the forests but get some economic benefit.
The concept of community ownership of forests could be developed throughout Scotland, but especially in central Scotland. Wide areas of central Scotland are affected by post-industrial dereliction—areas that have been used by the mining industry for open-cast mining and quarrying—where the land is not good for agriculture. There is much potential for tree planting in those areas. I am delighted that British Petroleum has been involved in helping to fund community woodland projects in central Scotland. That makes sense from BP's point of view and helps the communities.
It is important that people in the community—younger people and older people—are enjoying the woodland. In the past, those people would never have considered that an experience that they could enjoy and in which they could participate.
I shall not speculate on what your constituents are doing in the woodlands, but I am sure that they are happy.
They are looking for birds.
I apologise for sounding like Marge Simpson—my cold did not prevent me from getting out of bed to catch my train.
It is not a question of our timber being more expensive than anybody else's. Timber is a commodity for which prices are dictated globally. Anybody in forestry is a market taker, rather than a market maker—when their forest reaches maturity and is due to be felled they must take the world price for timber whatever it is. This is an awful time. I am advised that timber prices are at an all-time low. I am not sure how far back that measurement goes. Presumably if we went back to medieval times, we would find that timber was cheaper. However, the value of commercial timber has fallen by 40 per cent in four years.
Unlike agricultural commodities, which are traded through the European Union, timber is traded on international markets and exchange rates have a direct impact on its selling prices.
I am not allowed to say that.
There is a trade-off between cost-effectiveness and local processing. To be cost-effective on international markets there must be economies of scale. However, as the Steven's Croft development at Lockerbie demonstrates, places such as Dumfries and Galloway have a critical mass of forestry. That allows the industry to invest in the knowledge that it is going to get large supplies of timber. That means that value can be added relatively locally, although within 50 miles of the forest rather than five miles. The industry must then compete on the international market, something that it has been doing very successfully.
I am sure that the convener will agree that when we can enter the European single currency at the right rate, such things will be much easier.
The convener might not agree with that point.
Various people raised that point last week at the Royal Highland Show.
There is one question that I would like to raise, minister. When you covered the issue of timber supplies you almost dismissed it, and rightly so, because there are no timber supply problems, although one could argue that there is oversupply. All the timber that is likely to be harvested in Scotland within our lifetimes is probably already in the ground. There is an issue about continuity of supplies in the future. I would be interested to know whether there are any bombshells lurking in the supply chain that are likely to cause disruption in the continuity and quality of supply, related to plantings during the period leading up to the harvest.
You are right. The timber industry is a very long-term process. The lead time between the planting of a tree and the sawing of a log, even in softwoods, is perhaps 30 or 40 years. On page 21 of the draft plan, figure 2 shows a graph of projected output from our forests. That output rises up to 2020, but dips for the next 20 years. However, we are still talking about substantial output. The projected output will increase again between 2045 and 2065. That illustrates the importance of continuity. We must keep planting in order to sustain supplies and the processing industry.
There is no one answer. It is partly a question of continuing to plant trees for future production and partly a recognition that, as we reach that dip, there might be some advancing and delaying of fellings in response to market conditions. Processing in Scotland might never reach the highest peak, but as we approach that point there may be some export of surplus material.
Or even holdover.
Indeed. The processing industry will be geared towards a sustainable supply, rather than a short-term peak in supply.
In that projected production output, is there anything to indicate a change in the quality of timber available in that period? Will the shortage of quality timber remain a problem over the period that you mentioned?
I assume that that depends on the management of the woods. If the woods are managed properly, protected from deer and thinned at the right time, that should not be a problem. However, it is no good just sticking a tree in the ground and forgetting about it for the next 60 years—it must be looked after.
Timber quality is an important issue. To enter the higher value markets, one needs better quality in terms of strength classification. One of the priorities that we have set ourselves is to improve timber quality. That will mean addressing issues such as stocking density—ensuring that the trees are planted closely enough together—to get the strength characteristics needed for access to the higher value markets.
I understand that some of the respondents were a little critical because although the strategy is positive and moves in the right direction, there was not a clear enough indication of what Scotland's forested landscape would be like in the future. It might have included more specifics about the extent and relative importance of native forest, for example.
I am not sure that that criticism is entirely fair. If we had put out a draft strategy that was extremely specific—so that it said that from now on every forest should be planted with a certain species in a certain way—you would have been right to criticise us. We need to establish a set of priorities to be taken into account when people are deciding how and where to plant—that is what the strategy does. Those decisions will be different in different parts of Scotland; it depends on the climate, landscape and the local community. We depend on input from all those points of view. It would be wrong for us to have tunnel vision on this matter and to say that all we want is just native woodlands or Sitka or whatever. We need to mix and match, and that is the approach of the strategy.
Perhaps the respondents were looking for more of a middle ground. I accept that such specifics would be counterproductive, but perhaps you would accept that the strategy does not go into sufficient detail to allow an analysis of its impact or how it is to be achieved.
I hope that we are striking a balance. We have gone to enormous lengths to consult, to give everybody a chance to have their say and to pool all the information into the strategy. I hope that I have conveyed my belief that getting the landscape right is a high priority. We all acknowledge the mistakes that have been made in the past. We must take proper regard to giving native species their place, and we must design woodland planting in a way that is sensitive to the landscape and ecology of Scotland. All of that is in the strategy document; it will be taken into account when decisions are made on plans and woodland grant applications.
I have with me a small section of the submissions that we have received, which we are reading in great detail. I appreciate the points that are being made. Our job during the rest of the summer will be to consider carefully what people have been saying, and to decide what we can incorporate into the final version of the document, which I hope will be refined and improved. However, I do not want to be criticised at the end of the process for producing something that is all things to all men, so to speak. Decisions will have to be taken somewhere along the line.
The general principles are mapped out in this document. There is a broad consensus in support of those principles. However, in any scheme, final decisions have to be made on what is right and what is wrong, and we will have to make those decisions. The buck stops here, or with the Forestry Commission. If we are criticised on the one hand for being too general, and on the other for being too specific, perhaps we are not going too far wrong.
I believe that there were calls for a strategic environmental assessment to be carried out on this strategy. Is that idea being considered?
I understand that there is some European law about strategic environmental assessments in relation to policy, but I do not think that it has been transposed into UK law. I will need to check that. However, my understanding at the moment is that there is no legal requirement for a formal strategic environmental assessment.
In general, quality tree planting is environmentally beneficial, for obvious reasons, as a way of sequestrating carbon dioxide. However, if planting has a negative impact on the landscape, or if it contributes to acidification of watercourses and lochs, that clearly has to be taken into account. I am not aware of any formal requirements for assessment.
Not in UK or Scots law.
We have referred to the list of priorities for action given in the summary of your submission. You say that you are interested in the views of the committee on those priorities. Is there anything that you feel the committee has not yet addressed?
I cannot remember any precedent for a minister being given an opportunity to tell a committee what to say. I think that that would be entirely improper. David, are we looking for a particular steer on anything?
We have 23 priorities for action, and I can understand it when people ask whether that might be too many. I have not heard anyone say that we should delete a few priorities, but I have heard suggestions for there to be even more.
The issue of imports has come up today, and it is not in your list. Should it have been, or do imports not come under the forestry strategy?
Our forestry strategy is for the management of Scottish forests and woodlands. There is not a lot that we can do about imports in a free market in the European Union. If timber is available to be imported, people will do it whether we like it or not. We have to manage our forestry in such a way that it can compete with imports, certainly in terms of quality, but also in terms of price. That is difficult, but that is what we want to help the industry to do.
As there are no further questions on this item, I thank John Home Robertson and David Henderson-Howat for coming along to present the summary of the forestry strategy. We are grateful for your continued support on the issue. We realise that forestry is a high priority in the rural economy, and are keen to ensure that we understand the issues connected to it and keep a broad, two-way communication going with the minister.
Thank you. I understand that quite a lot of trees are felled to print railway timetables. I shall try to ensure that you get one for future reference. [Laughter.]
Next
Digital Scotland