26 January 2022
A significant expansion of productive forests is vital to tackling climate change and reducing pressure on fragile global forests, a respected academic told the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Forestry and Tree Planting.
Dr Andrew Cameron of the University of Aberdeen was prompted to write a paper in 2021 because of his "concerns over negativity towards productive forestry" - despite the multiple benefits it can deliver.
He presented the paper - Expanding productive forests creates cost effective carbon sinks and reduces loss of natural forests by offsetting timber extraction - to an online APPG meeting organised by Confor. [Watch the meeting here]
Dr Cameron said criticisms of productive forestry by some environmental groups and commentators were rarely challenged and said this had to change. He added: "Productive and environmental tree planting are too often presented as competing options, but both have a place. It's important to discuss expanding conservation forests and rewilding, but there is little or no discussion on the potentially wider consequences.
"There is obvious appeal of establishing conservation forests and rewilding - such as advantages for biodiversity - but little or no expectation of timber production from these forests and no mention of where more than 30 million tonnes of wood products that we use each year in the UK comes from. If we pursue a particular land-use policy, we need to think through its wider implications."
He noted that the UK was the second biggest net importer of wood products in the world (after China), with 80% coming from overseas. This had environmental and economic risks to the UK, he said, as it was dangerous to depend so heavily on imports in a world where timber demand is expected [at least] double by 2050, leading to a global timber shortage.
Neil Parish MP, chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) committee at Westminster, said: “We need to treat trees as a crop as well as an environmental benefit - but are we taking that side of things seriously?”
Confor CEO Stuart Goodall said: “Forestry Commission understands the range of benefits and need for different types of planting and Defra has expanded its team and we have taken them out to planting sites so they can see that we cannot just focus on environmental outcomes. But it does not feel that message is getting home and being supported at a ministerial level.”
Mr Parish called for further information from Confor on this issue ahead of the publication of the EFRA committee report on tree planting - and said he was keen to speak further to Dr Cameron about his report.
Summarising his paper, Dr Cameron said: “Expansion of productive forests will offset timber production from the world’s remaining natural forests - already under extreme threat from exploitation. Also, productive forests are highly effective at sequestering atmospheric carbon, while producing an entirely renewable and sustainable material - wood.”
Many European countries that the UK relies upon for timber imports are revising down timber production forecasts due to climate-induced damage - meaning less timber available for export, reduced supply and higher prices.
Dr Cameron said the area of productive forestry had to increase significantly to tackle the timber shortfall. Just 3% of the world's total forest area is productive plantation forests, but it produces a third of global industrial timber.
Annual global industrial timber use - 6 billion cubic metres - would require 2-6 billion hectares of natural forest to achieve. Plantation forests produce far more cubic metres of timber per hectare (10-20+m3 compared to 1-3m3 from natural/semi-natural forests) - so 0.3 to 0.6 billion hectares of productive forest could meet the entire current global industrial timber use, without the need for more logging in natural forests. That would allow more of the world's remaining natural forests to be devoted to wildlife protection and habitat conservation.
Dr Cameron quoted 2021 research from Eilidh Forster of Bangor University, saying productive forests support up to 269% more greenhouse gas mitigation potential than newly-planted broadleaf conservation forests - when accounting for forest growth and wood use. He said wood use was not always considered in a full life cycle analysis of the value of wood - although it was becoming more popular in construction as it uses far less energy to produce (than, for example, cement, steel and brick) and because its thermal insulation properties were far better than alternative materials.
He concluded by saying that the UK could make a significant impact in a number of key areas by committing to major expansion of productive forests:
Ben Lake MP, Chair of the APPG, said: "The UK Government's own policies are failing to create new productive forests – undermining the UK’s ability to produce more home-grown wood.
"This is happening at a time when everyone accepts more home-grown timber is desperately needed - to support the green recovery, to decarbonise construction and increase home-grown wood supply as global prices soar and long-term demand rises rapidly."
Lord Carrington, APPG Vice-Chair, said money was crucial to increased afforestation: "Any farmer on any moderately good grade of land will not plant trees if he thinks he can do better by rewilding or putting up a solar farm. It all comes down to a financial decision.
"Information is not there about how profitable growing trees on farmland is, so farmers like me sit on our hands rather than growing trees. We would love to grow trees - but there has to be financial sense in doing it."
Baroness Young, Chair of The Woodland Trust, said forestry would be discussed in the House of Lords' new inquiry into land use.
"We're looking at everything that is a pressure on land," she said. "We have got to get multi-functional land use going - putting the right trees in right place and not ignoring production. Forestry production is a very legitimate land use."
Confor CEO Stuart Goodall, asked how ‘productive forestry’ and ‘conservation forestry’ could work together better and not ‘talk past each other’, said: “Confor has made repeated attempts to build relationships with conservation or environmental NGOs, with varying levels of success. We have a good relationship with the Woodland Trustand are working with them on updating the Forestry Accord (agreed in 1996) as a basis for future cooperation. Its focus is on native woodland protection and expansion, so our agendas will always overlap rather than be the same. We have also had good relations with WWF and Friends of the Earth as they care about what happens beyond our shores as well as here, and see the benefits for example of producing more home-grown wood.”
Dr Cameron prompted a discussion on ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ trees by saying: “Native plant species are normally defined as those that have arrived since the last ice age. The UK’s island status has resulted in a very limited tree flora and tree species have been introduced since at least Roman times, and more frequently in the 18th and 19th centuries.”
He noted: “The debate on nativeness does not seem to apply to our food since there is practically nothing we eat that is truly native. We live in a world that humans have changed over millennia and have to live and work with what we have now.”
Dr Cameron agreed we should “protect and expand remaining remnants of our native forest and their unique diversity of species”, but said these were “already protected by various designations”. He added: “The real discussion is about what we do with the extensive areas of degraded land – over-grazed, frequently burned, used for marginal agriculture, or abandoned.”
John Healey of Bangor University wondered if the term “native” should be removed as it was unhelpful and could polarise opinion.