Mr S Holub-Swindell DEF0001
Written evidence submitted by Mr S Holub-Swindell
I am new to the forestry industry, having graduated from an MSc in Environmental and Forest Management in 2020, I have now been working as a forest manager for 18 months, specialising in forest planning and woodland creation in Scotland.
I would like to address points regarding Growing the UK timber industry.
- Does the UK Government have an adequate understanding of the future demand for timber, including what tree species should be grown?
- From my experience dealing with Scottish Forestry (SF), no. As is widely know at this point, woodland creation targets are not going to be met. There is a significant shortfall in trees being put in the ground and this is due to shortfalls from SF. Applications to plant small woodlands are taking years to be given approval, usually being held up by SF being unwilling to make decisions over environmental/social/economic issues, seemingly defaulting with on the side of not planting trees, delaying projects, and withholding funding. This is often operating outside of their imposed time windows to supply evidence and submit documents. The feeling is that SF are not on the side of the forestry industry and are not encouraging woodland creation, rather they are hindering it and making it more expensive. This is particularly apparent for commercial projects, finding any reason not to allow the project to go ahead until the commercial component is largely slashed and making the projects significantly less financially viable. Whilst there of course needs to be a heavy environmental weighing into decisions, the present weight is not allowing the industry to grow. SF need more funding, more staff, and more expertise to allow the private sector to operate at the rate they have the ability to because at present, they are acting as a bottleneck for increasing timber supply.
- Does the UK government, working with the devolved administrations, have an effective, joined-up plan with appropriate incentives to increase the production and use of sustainable, domestically grown timber in the UK to reduce its reliance on imports?
- There is still not enough incentive to plant Sitka alternatives. The older generation in the industry are still only interested in planting Sitka because that is the only way they can see of getting a profit. The younger generations understand the importance and long-term profitability of planting in greater diversity and are trying to do so but do not hold the purse strings. Sitka is of course massively important to the industry, and we need to continue planting it at increasing rates but presently nothing is being done to encourage the larger commercial properties to plant Sitka alternatives. The slightly higher WCG rate for diverse conifers does nothing to encourage pension funds and alike to plant Sitka alternatives because it is so heavily outweighed by what they can value the land at when planted with Sitka. Additionally, SF is presently too concerned with doing the right thing with regards to commercial species choices that not enough is being planted. Sure, Sitka might be the best choice sometimes be the need to plant is now and forever holding up projects does nothing to encourage planting. Imperfect species choice is better than not planting at all. Getting trees in the ground is the most important thing.
- How well is the UK Government managing its plans for the domestic timber industry in tandem with meeting its woodland creation targets and related climate change, biodiversity, and other environmental goals?
- The Woodland Carbon Code should balance the profitability of a commercial project and a broadleaf project and presently it just doesn’t. The purpose of it should be that when someone buys a piece of land for woodland creation, they should be able to plant the right tree in the right place and the cost should not matter because it is balanced by carbon credits or by timber income. This is currently not the case, and a site will be planted with one or the other. This reduced flexibility is not good for investment and is not good for the environment. Additionally, the WCC is expensive and renders it inaccessible to small projects.
- How effectively is the UK strengthening the resilience of its tree stock to ensure it is resilient to the future impacts of climate change, as well as to pests and diseases?
- As previously stated, there is not enough incentive to plant Sitka alternatives, so a small palate of commercial species is still only being chosen from. Whilst planting greater diversity in commercial species needs to be encouraged, this cannot be at the sacrifice of planting the right tree for the site. If there is a uniform site, there should only be one species planted there. This makes forest management, economic and environmental sense and if grant aid is only given for planting a large range of species (like in Wales), planting will be discouraged, and investment will be taken elsewhere. With an ever-decreasing number of species to choose from because of pests and diseases, more needs to be done to encourage Sitka alternatives to be planted. The financial outcome of Sitka vs alternative species needs to be more comparable. Species choice by investors is often determined by what sawmills are paying for now, which of course may not be the demand in the future.
In summary, despite the complexity of the issues described, the solution begins and ends with increased funding for Scottish Forestry. Foresters are responsible people and are trying to do what is environmentally and economically best, because of course we want our industry to flourish. But the hinderances come from the red tape slowing down the already slow process of growing trees. We can see that SF conservancies are understaffed and under qualified. Understaffed meaning the length of time it takes to get paperwork and grants through because of the volume that they are receiving is significantly longer than it should be, and under qualified meaning woodland officers are not prepared to make decisions and need to run it up the hierarchy, causing further delays. Pay officers better so they keep their skills in the public sector rather than leaving for the private, hire more woodland officers, and give them more training.
July 2022