Two days ago there was an article in the Scotsman (see here) about the “mass tree planting” at Far Ralia in which Fraser Green, head of Natural Capital Investment at Abrdn, admitted mistakes had been made:

“We have learned a lot and there are things that we have done with Far Ralia that we wouldn’t do again, including basic things around designing woodlands and certain processes.”

That is a very welcome admission.  It something that neither the Scottish Government nor Scottish Forestry nor the Cairngorms National Park Authority has ever admitted to about the disastrous native woodland carbon offsetting schemes in the National Park, including Far Ralia, BrewDog’s Lost Forest (see here) and Muckrach (see here).

Unfortunately, Fraser Green  did not explain what Abrdn thought those mistakes were.  Had he done so, it might have forced the Scottish Government to reform the Forestry Grants Scheme.

Perhaps Abrdn will do so in future?  However at present Abrdn is trying to wind up their Property Income Trust and sell Far Ralia for £12m, £4.5m more than what they purchased it for three years ago (see here). It is not in their interests to identify the mistakes which should – if carbon markets were rational and not about financial speculation – affect the value of the land.  Hence why Mr Green was quoted in the Scotsman as saying:

“the rise in value for Far Ralia was due to the first phase of tree planting being finished, which came at a “very hefty capital cost”. He said: “That is obviously capital that a buyer doesn’t have to spend themselves and if they were acquiring Far Ralia as we did, they would be anticipating to do so”.

Fraser Green also claimed “We have put our money where our mouth is” without saying how much the Abrdn Property Income Trust spent on the estate in the last three years.

One can dispute whether the capital cost was “hefty” – its small beer in city terms – but it is an indisputable fact that the public was originally paying for most of it,  £2,559,303.91 to be precise, through the Forestry Grants Scheme (see here) with additional peatland action funds also apparently promised.  While Abrdn did initially fund some things which were ineligible for grant support, like the “bothy” in the photo above, this appears to have been relatively little.

As a result of the botched tree planting by Akre (see here), which resulted in trees from the wrong seed zones being planted and the importation of sycame, someone will have had to pay for the remedial works.  If Abrdn got their contract right, it should have been Akre trees.  However, if they have been forced to put their hands in their pockets, they should not be expecting to recoup that money through the inflated sale price.  It was ultimately their mistake and they should pay for it.

As an aside, while the Scotsman article states the remedial works ordered are now complete neither  Scottish Forestry nor any prospective buyer will be able to tell whether the sycamore have been removed until the spring when they come into leaf.

Any investment whether by Scottish Forestry or Abrdn, however, needs to be set against the longer-term benefits or in this case the damage that has been caused. The greatest single mistake was planting on peat which, by Abrdn’s own calculations, will result in carbon being emitted to the atmosphere for the next 15 years:

That calculation, as I explained (see here), now appears a serious underestimate, with Muckrach calculating net emissions would continue for 25 years and scientific research by Friggens et al (see here) suggesting there might not be any net carbon benefit even after 40 years.  The irony here is that while the Scottish Government is spending £250m over 10 years on restoring peatbogs, on the grounds that theyse are one of Scotland’s largest source of carbon emissions, it has been destroying peat to plant trees by hinge mounding. If Abrdn were to admit that it would sink much of the speculative woodland carbon code market.

The alleged benefits of tree planting for nature are also far from clear as I have shown in my critique of Abrdn’s use of work done by the Natural History Museum for Far Ralia (see here).  In this the NHM claimed Biodiversity Intactness at Far Ralia would improve to 94% as a result of the tree planting (apparently in an attempt to curry favour and get money from city interests (see here).  That unevidenced research is still being used by Abrdn to try and help justify their asking price of £12m.

Now Ron Summers, former scientist at the RSPB’s Abernethy reserve, and Des Thompson, former Principal Adviser on Biodiversity and Science at NatureScot, have raised further questions about the impact that the holes created by hinge mounding in an article in Scottish Birds.  They have used Far Ralia as an example of their concerns which are about the chicks of ground nesting birds falling into the holes :

Ron and Des are far too good scientists to make assertions which are not backed by evidence and, as their article points out, there is no recent research on this but for most people the risks of chicks falling into holes created by hinge mounding should be obvious.   Their article does, however, suggest a precautionary approach and makes the case for screefing and slotting instead of hinge mounding, again using Far Ralia as an example:

 

Unfortunately, whatever you think of tree planting to “restore” nature, screefing and slotting was only used for a very small proportion of the trees at Far Ralia.  Had it been used at Far Ralia it might not just have saved a few birds but it would have also reduced carbon emissions considerably.  If a powerful company like Abrdn to admit the hinge mounding was a mistake, on both carbon and wildlife grounds,  it would be very difficult for Scottish Forestry to continue paying for it.

The one mistake that is admitted to by Abrdn in the Scotsman article is they could have got consultation with the local community better: .