On 19th December 2023 the Scottish Government announced that Scottish Forestry’s grant budget would be cut by £32m or 41% for the year 2024/25. Almost a year later the Scottish Government, in its budget for 2025/26 announced ion 4th December, is proposing to increase spending on forestry grants next year from £45,367,000 to £53,000,000 a 16.8% increase with the specific objective of supporting delivery of “climate change targets through woodland creation and tree planting and to restore and protect Scotland’s Atlantic Rainforest”.
As I have been documenting on parkswatch (see here, here and here) the forestry grant system is achieving the opposite of what is ostensibly intended and releasing more carbon into the atmosphere through the destruction of soils. It has also been harming wildlife while pump priming financial speculation in land. The last thing we need at present, therefore, is for the forestry grants budget to be increased before it is fundamentally reformed as this will cause more harm. It would be far better, as Dave Morris is advocating (see here), for it to be suspended for a year to enable a rethink.
For those concerned about the so-called Atlantic Rainforest, beneath the entries for forestry on the Level 4 budget tables (see here under the Rural Affairs tab) there is a section on natural resources. Besides peatland restoration that includes a budget line for Atlantic Rainforest restoration:
Why there are two lines in the Scottish Government budget allocating money for Atlantic Rainforest Restoration is unclear but whatever money is currently included under Woodland Grants for this purpose could simply be moved to Natural Resources so long as it wasn’t used to plant trees.
The rest of the Scottish Forestry grant money which has not been contractually committed in advance should be re-allocated for the next financial year to reducing deer numbers wherever possible to two or less per square kilometre. This would enable woodland expansion to happen naturally, stop carbon being released unnecessarily from soils and reduce the damage being done to wildlife through killer deer fences.
Part of the money could go to Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), whose income the Scottish Government proposed to cut next year, to get deer numbers on its land under proper control. This would enable it to stop erecting new damaging deer fences as it is proposing to do in Glen Prosen (subject of a forthcoming blog), remove the need for planting trees in the Greater Trossachs Forest where it has adopted an eventual target of 5 deer per square kilometre with the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park and satisfy those landowning interests who attribute some of their difficulties in controlling deer to the numbers on FLS land.
The rest of the forestry grant money and the staff who administer it should be transferred/seconded to NatureScot to allocate to deer managers who are serious about reducing deer numbers but don’t have the funds to pay for this themselves (i.e any grants should be means tested).
Should FLS and NatureScot doubt they could spend the £53m in this way for a year, there are other woodland related objectives on which the money could be spent, such as the removal of invasive non-native species, including sitka spruce, from areas of native woodland which a couple of readers have advocated in response to my most recent posts
These or similar radical proposals are achievable politically. In order to get the proposed budget for 2025/26 passed the SNP Scottish Government needs to get support from other political parties, most probably either the Greens or the LibDems. All that is needed therefore is for these two parties to commit to ending the destruction being caused by the forestry grants system – why would the Greens support expenditure that is directly and unnecessarily increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere – and make any support for next year’s budget conditional on a full review of the forestry grants scheme with a temporary re-allocation of funds until this happens.
If you are sympathetic to this argument please consider lobbying your constituency and list MSPs.
The risk in all this is that you destroy the woodland creation capacity we currently have, including tree nurseries, and in a way that we never get it back again. No-one will ever trust ScotGov again and they wont invest in any longer term equipment or training. Most farms/ estates would only commit to reductions in deer densities if funding for that could be guaranteed for the longer term, potentially 20 years or more. One year means nothing. Agency staff have been trying to re- design a better grant scheme, integrating deer management, since 2020 or so, and are still miles away from that, with little chance of success. Sawmills would take the message that they are not wanted, and stop investing. The Forestry Grant Scheme does not need to be closed down to review it, that can be done in parallel. If people are lobbying MSPs, then a proper FGS review in 2025/26 is an easier ask, with a fixed deadline, and then make the NEXT year’s funding dependent upon that being delivered. That would apply the necessary pressure.. You dont need to destroy everything to achieve constructive change.
Victor, as someone who advocates a precautionary approach to nature I accept that the proposal might have some unintended consequences but what would you do? The urgent need for radical reform should be clear, we simply cannot afford to go on destroying upland soils releasing carbon into the atmosphere and, as you point out, Scottish Forestry and the interests around it are incapable of reforming themselves (4 years work has got nowhere). Alternatives that I can think of which could be done for next year are:
1) suspend the Woodland Carbon Code instead. This clearly isn’t helping to plant new trees if tree nurseries completely depend on forestry grants to drive demand and is appears to be making carbon emissions worse
2) ban all ploughing and mounding and only allow planting through screefing to reduce carbon emissions from soils
3) reduce tree density requirements as you have advocated
4) stop paying capital grants for fences and use the money that would have been spent to control deer on the property
Could such a package of measures pave the way to a new system?
and is doing
I would say that there are enough examples of poor practice around at the moment (some of which you and Calum Campbell and others have highlighted) to bring the whole process in to disrepute for everyone. So, something has to change. ScotGov are reluctant to put in the budget required to give the planting area they say they need, and targets are not being hit. Carbon credits inflate land prices (which is detrimental to everyone, as farmers have just found out to their cost), but they have also inflated the cost/ ha to establish trees, because everyone thinks the industry is awash with money, and so they can charge more. That works against smaller and medium sized holdings who would like to plant or regenerate trees, but who dont want to get involved in selling their carbon, which effectively means selling your soil to a third party. The overall effect will be to drive woodland creation down. It is also the case that woodland created by regeneration attracts only a small proportion of the grants that planting does, so people plant. What I would do is this: (1) make carbon trading illegal in this country. It is making a few people a lot of money, but it is not increasing the outputs being sought. It is in fact working against them. (2) Remove the 10 ha cap on lower density woodlands. Commercial conifer plantations need 2500+ trees/ ha, but native woodlands do not. Lower density woodlands cost less to establish, and they can be more easily planted by hand and lower impact methods, and have greater flexibility. The cost/ ha is much lower, so you get more hectares for your money. Mixed woodland/ open space is more in keeping with the Scottish landscape than even aged plantations of native species, is more stable to wind, more sensitive to carbon rich areas, easier to control deer in, better for a range of plant/ insect/ animal communities. (3) Increase the regeneration grants so that they equate fully to low density planting, (4) Dont be too prescriptive in terms of planting patterns or species choice (5) Recognize that because you are allowing more open space, it becomes more difficult to verify what has been planted or regenerated, but experienced SF staff will have an instinct for whether a scheme is working or not. Empower them to make decisions about marginal situations. (This requires a different working culture, and needs to accept that they might sometimes make mistakes) (6) Dont be too prescriptive about fences vs no fences. In my experience, landowners will do what they need to do on the deer front to make woodland expansion work if they are persuaded that this is a good idea. The real cost of fencing/ no fencing is actually very similar when taken over 10 years or so, but the balance is now tilting towards no fencing because (a) Fencing is becoming more expensive, and (b) Fences are simply not now lasting long enough to see many woodlands established. However, it is very important not to take an ideological approach to this, because you risk smaller farmers and landowners not planting at all. Let them do their own risk- assessment. (7) Allow private money to “top up” the overall woodland creation pot administered by SF, so that they can then genuinely say that they created x ha of trees in Scotland, perhaps restricted to the low density native model only. That will allow for private funding, but remove the double claiming that we see at the moment. SF can verify what they have achieved, but important not to create an entitlement that can be traded. That is where the real damage occurs. Finally, I would say that in the Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme (SFGS) of 2003-6, we had a good example of how the Scottish woodland sector, including community woodlands, could design an effective and flexible scheme for our own requirements in a relatively short space of time, and was probably the best grant scheme we had in my time. The main barrier to doing this at the moment however is the requirement to keep us 100% aligned with EU schemes in case we ever want to go back again. We have to accept that we have left the EU, and that gives us the opportunity to be as flexible as we want to be. If we stay aligned, our hands are tied, and that is a big part of the problem too.
There are myriad facets of the land monopoly racket that is rural Scotland and this is yet another example. Is it the fault of people living in Drumchapel, Westerhailes, Blackhill or Saughton Mains that deer numbers have risen to the level they are at or has it something to do with the 421 corporate/ individual private owners who own half of Scotland’s private land and how they manage their property? (NB down from 432 from previous estimates despite 2 so-called land reform acts).
We need a radical paradigm shift facilitated by direct legislation and fiscal measures to remove the current oligarchy which as Joseph Stalin reminds from his extensive experience, is not likely to give up its power voluntarily. That paradigm should include the collection of AGR http://www.slrg.scot and the conversion of Quangos such as FLS into national SERVICE agencies.
There are problems with some specific woodland creation schemes but your proposals would make things much worse, not better. The Forestry Grant Scheme covers not only large and small woodland creation projects but also wide range of woodland planning and management operations: shutting this down for a year would be hugely damaging not just to nursery sector (as per VC comments) but also to community woodlands across Scotland.
Deer are a huge issue but this needs systemic land reform, not shuffling of agency budgets (and it’s hard to imagine NatureScot doing a complete volte-face and taking on landowners at a national scale). And re your comments on FLS culling: SWT estimate FLS deliver a third of the national cull despite managing only 8% of the land (https://scottishwildlifetrust.org.uk/2024/07/the-problem-with-deer/) – some landowners will always find excuses but more usually complaining about “their” deer being shot (https://www.scotsman.com/news/landowner-threatens-to-sue-over-deer-slaughter-1711728)
Just a couple of corrections to your first paragraph. It should say £45,367,000 and £53,000,000.
I think you also meant ‘objective’ rather than ‘objection’.
Another great blog, thanks.
Brian
Thanks so much for the corrections, have made, Nick
Lots of thoughts and ideas from Nick’s thought provoking blog. The problem for me is – is the Scottish Government listening and willing to engage, or is it just box-ticking as usual and patting themselves in the back that they are doing such a great job?
My (simplistic but pragmatic) approach would be to divert a significant fraction of the planting grant money to on site inspections and reviews of work completed. There are too many examples of very high proportions of the planting saplings dying in the first year or so. Secondly, divert more money to financially encouraging regeneration. In a time when so much money is being wasted by the Scottish Government, we need evidence of delivery, not just evidence of spend against wrong measures.
There is also much to be done to require proven improved planting techniques (that is if planting really needs to be done at all).
Lastly, I agree with other commentors – make carbon trading illegal. There is far too much pretence on reducing carbon release, rather than taking real measurable actions. Is the Scottish Government listening??
I could not disagree more with your views Nick, as this land could be much more beneficially used. I would reforrest most of Scotland like it used to be. Land which generates income from forresty will not have deer, as wood is higher value. Then use that wood to create jet fuel (SAF) to offset carbon emissions for flying. Thus land owners get income, UK PLC gets decarbonisation, rural communities get jobs planting, tending, cutting trees and factory jobs making fuel. Its the same logic applied to protection of rare breeds: make them profitable.
Hill and wild Land does not have to be industrialised to have a beneficial purpose. Scotland derives huge income from the idea that these uplands along teh north Atlantic seaboard have special qualities. It means those who have trashed their own spaces and now live amid a mess of overhead cables, roads around ring roads and ever expanding urban sparawl still have somewhere they can travel to. It is still possible ( just) to experience Landscapes that have been there all along.
The reason, arguably, that Scotland has this present political deadlock where industrialisation of the final areas lacking development is taking place, is clear enoough. Too many people who do not live here and yet have access to political might and wealth, lack empathy for natural things. Some even imagine they can do better short-term, than nature and gradual evolution has been able to.
This landscape is already in beneficial use. Tens, even hundreds of thousands come to Scotland just to enjoy what it offers every month.