Woodknowledge Wales                            DEF0036

Written evidence submitted by Woodknowledge Wales

Sustainable timber and deforestation

The Environmental Audit Committee is launching a new inquiry into sustainable timber in the UK and the UK’s contribution to global deforestation. The inquiry will investigate:

1. how the UK, which imports most of its timber, can best scale up a sustainable, resilient domestic timber sector and reduce its reliance on imports;
2. the degree to which UK supply chains contribute to deforestation overseas and the effectiveness of the government’s efforts to curb this; and
3. how the UK works with international partners to tackle deforestation.

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? Researchers, foresters and professional bodies have been warning UK and devolved governments for over two decades that politicians and civil servants have completely inadequate or dysfunctional perceptions of sustainable forestry. UK Government does not know which tree species will be capable of growing in the dynamic environments created by climate change and agriculture. Novel resilient forested landscapes are misunderstood. The topic needs resources, joined-up and critical thinking. Prescriptive political or neo-romanticist narratives are at best unhelpful.

• 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? UK Government does not work effectively with devolved governments nor is there a joined-up plan to increase industrial roundwood production in Britain; especially in England and Wales where failure to increase productive forest cover is well evidenced by the large gap between targets and attainments. For instance, arguably Wales has a better working relationship with Ireland’s state-owned forest business than UK Forestry Commission.

• Are there sustainable sources of biomass for UK energy generation either from imported or domestically grown wood for pellet or woodchip? And how can future demand be met from sustainable sources? Burning of biomass coproducts from homegrown timber for energy generation within closed loops at discreet biomass-utilising production sites such as sawmills, biorefineries and composite panel manufacturers is a logical and efficient use of resources. Importation and incineration of biomass products for electricity generation to supply the national grid is at best a controversial process, especially if subsidised. Drax claims to produce 12% of UK’s renewable power and that their CCS will create a negative emissions process. If so then why not burn coal again and license their CCS to other nations still desperately dependent on coal? Wood fibre is a valuable sustainable substitute for many materials currently manufactured using fossil fuels; for instance wood fibre insulation is a critically important product for improving the energy efficiency of our existing housing stock. UK forests cannot produce enough timber of any grade to fulfil current UK industrial wood requirements. If Britain is serious about increasing its production and sustainable consumption of wood and fibre for carbon storage in the built environment then incineration is an irrational one time use.

• 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? Repeated underperformance against UK Government’s own targets clearly demonstrates the failure to significantly increase woodland area of any kind in England and Wales. Furthermore, outcomes are still not clearly defined and compartmentalised. UK and devolved governments have conflated neo-romanticist narratives with societal expectations of the multiple roles for forests. The separate roles of high yield industrial forests and biodiverse semi-natural forest refugia have been disingenuously or mistakenly conflated. Many forestry experts such as John Spears and Nobel laureate Roger Sedjo have repeatedly explained these separate roles and been ignored. Industrial forests should be considered as productive niche ecosystems designed using novel resilience measures. These forest plantations have their own biodiversity outputs for instance Kielder Forest is famous as a refuge for native red squirrels. Semi-natural forests need different management protocols and interventions in order to increase or preserve their biodiversity.

• 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? Britain has not effectively strengthened tree or forest resilience although Bangor University and Woodknowledge Wales recently created an evidence-based ‘’Top 5’’ list of resilient conifer species for novel productive forests. We urgently need funding to use a similar research process to identify resilient hardwood species for future forests. However laissez-faire trading in live plants for resale to lifestyle consumers continues despite having caused the introduction of several tree pathogens to the UK. Plant health experts from Alice Holt have repeatedly warned about the train of pests and pathogens, accelerated by climate change, which is heading for the UK. Since the TSO published COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE THE SYNTHESIS REPORT in 2009 and despite plant health expert Joan Webber’s dire warnings, oak processionary moth and ash dieback have been imported and have taken hold in the UK. Millions of ash trees have already died. Several Phytophthora species are now endemic and P. ramorum has already decimated our larch forests which could have significantly contributed to the construction sector. Scientists have sometimes used the phrase ‘’a warning to humanity’’ in the titles of academic papers for the past two decades. Nevertheless UK and devolved governments have not effectively acted on the warnings of scientists. Existing forests need significant new investment to improve their resilience against environmental hazards. 

The effectiveness of UK efforts to reduce global deforestation

• In what ways and to what extent are UK value chains (in the form of public procurement, goods, services, or the private sector) contributing to global deforestation? It is beyond the scope of this call for evidence to fully characterise Britain’s contribution to global deforestation. By the mid-1850s laissez faire exploitation of India’s and Burma’s teak forests had already caused massive deforestation for the sake of the British Empire’s economic growth. Even after biologist Sir Dietrich Brandis implemented sustainable forest management protocols, laissez faire traders played the system. Burmese forests are still exploited for production of high value teak goods.
• How effectively is the Government monitoring the UK’s contribution to global deforestation and its progress in tackling the issue? And what progress has been made by Government to develop an indicator on overseas environmental impacts of UK consumption of key commodities? Look at our planet and weep.

• How effective are the measures to improve due diligence and ban imported products of illegal deforestation in the Environment Act 2021? Do these measures target the right sectors? Given that they do not extend to all products of deforestation, are they adequate? The EU is apparently regarded by the UK as overzealous in regard to regulatory processes. However the 2021 draft policy set to replace EUTR regulations has already been questioned according to ITTO: ‘’there is also widespread concern across Member States over the complexity of enforcement, the costs and potential discriminatory consequences for smallholders and SMEs and the impact on consumer food prices and global competitiveness of European producers in the global forest products and agricultural commodities trade.’’ *Microsoft Word - MIS 16-28 Feb (itto.int)

Will today’s laissez faire, low tax, low regulation UK Government really have the will or resources to tackle deforestation in modern Burma, never mind Amazonia and The Congo Basin?       

• To what extent have the Global Resource Initiative (GRI) Taskforce’s recommendations on deforestation and land conversion been met by the Government? No comment.

• What role can sustainable certification and Government Buying Standards (GBS), have in tackling deforestation? How can the UK Government support the private sector to reduce its contribution to furthering deforestation? It seems self-evident that increasing bureaucratic processes within a laissez faire culture is contradictory and therefore unlikely to have any real-world impact in tackling deforestation. If certification works, then why has deforestation increased?

Working with international partners to tackle deforestation

• How effectively is the UK engaging with international partners to tackle deforestation? Is the Glasgow Leaders Declaration on Forests and Land Use an effective mechanism for halting and reversing forest loss? How can the UK ensure its £1.5bn commitment to the Global Forest Finance Pledge is used to best effect? In answer to this last question, a programme of establishing high yield productive forests on appropriate marginal land or degraded agricultural land could be justified by recent FAO and WWF policy statements. Novel productive forests will be able to supply industrial roundwood for societal needs that is otherwise extracted ad hoc from semi-natural forests thus damaging their structure and biodiversity. Experts from specialist universities and institutes will need to be recruited.

• What impact will the UK’s measures to tackle deforestation have on producer countries, indigenous peoples and local communities? There is a danger of resource dissipation and strategy dilution in the face of the massive environmental challenges caused by population pressure and climate change. Commit to clear, doable outcomes. Use simple military-type strategies rather than complex bureaucratic processes. This is a new hybrid war and we need to design battle orders that are informed by scientific evidence.

September 2022