Perhaps the Government can't see the wood for the trees!

Trees, indeed virtually all plants, play an important role in the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Through the biochemical process of photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is taken in by trees and stored as carbon in the trunk, branches, leaves and roots.

The Committee on Climate Change’s own analysis outlines that 32,000 hectares of net woodland increase is required annually, for the next 30 years. This would move the UK from 13% to 17% woodland cover and help to achieve the legally binding target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. This equates to a million new hectares of woodland cover - some 1.5 billion trees.

The increase in planting is going to have to be huge - for the past 25 years no more than 10,000 hectares of new woodland has been planted in any one year across the UK. 

Plenty of organisations have been quick to shout about their plans. For instance, the National Trust wants to create 18,000 hectares (44,478 acres) of new woodland across England, Wales and Northern Ireland by 2030, planting some 20 million trees.

All of this might well be fine if it is all properly thought through.

We live on a relatively small piece of land here in the UK and our growing population is already placing huge pressures on the land we have available. If tree planting is targeted at places where the trees will not only help with carbon sequestration, but also help to prevent soil erosion and potential flooding, (by holding back water), create new habitat for wildlife, while also giving places for people to get some fresh air - then great!

But will this be the case or does the clamour for planting many more trees, simply result in them being plonked anywhere? If that is the case, does it actually matter?

Well yes, I think it does.

If you have an “open” river flood plain that is lucky enough to still have declining breeding species such as Curlew, Lapwing, Redshank and Snipe nesting there, then tree planting would quickly see these species move away. They hate trees, because that is where avian predators sit and watch their ever move.

Parts of the country that have wide open vistas with few trees attract species that favour that sort of landscape. This is why an area such as the Salisbury plain is potentially good for Corn bunting, Grey partridge, Stone curlew and Quail. Once again tree planting would, over time, move these species away.

Also, what about feeding ourselves? Do we really want to plant trees on good agricultural land? Surely, we want to try to become more self-sufficient rather than importing food from around the world with the corresponding carbon footprint that follows such a scenario.

Can’t we also be a bit more imaginative? Presently, we densely plant half a dozen tree species across the country, in a forestry style designed for timber production. (By the way – you need to do this to get the grant!)

A new, grant aided, densely planted small woodland in rows - in my view unimaginative, boring and not that great for wildlife

Many of the new tree planting areas, especially if they are on steep slopes, wet ground or are relatively small, oddly shaped woods, will never be realistically used for timber production. So why these ridiculous planting guidelines that must be followed?  Indeed, why trees at all – what about shrubs?

Give me a couple of hectares (5 acres) and let me plant it up with species such as Hawthorn, Buckthorn, Guelder rose, Wild privet, Dogwood, Spindle, Hazel, Holly and maybe some Crab apple. I would leave around 10 to 20% of the area un-planted, to create open glades within the shrubbery, which could be planted with native wild flowers. 

Within 5 years this would be the most wonderful wildlife haven, providing pollen and nectar and of course berries, fruit and nuts come the winter. A very different scenario from the 5 year old wood made up solely of trees, which planted so closely together, would be offering little to wildlife at this stage. Shrubs grow much faster than trees and are also powerful carbon sequestration systems in their own right!

Plus, what about Agro-forestry, where a farmer might plant only 100 trees a hectare (instead of well over a 1000 per hectare in a forestry plan) and continue to graze the pasture under the trees with livestock? Don’t forget that permanent pasture is also a great sequester of carbon!

The French Ministry of Agriculture has a target of ‘50% of farmers using Agro-forestry by 2025’. 

Sheep grazing amongst newly planted trees - Agro-forestry

The UK needs to increase its woodland cover, but we are also losing many trees through Ash die-back disease. It is reckoned that we may well lose over 95% of Ash trees, one of our most common trees in the landscape.

It is worth noting that with current tree planting pledges, the UK’s existing tree nurseries will quickly run out of native sourced and grown trees, so there is a supply chain issue. The ash die-back fungus was almost certainly introduced through imported sapling trees for planting in the UK. 

So, the Government needs to do much, much more than just announce impressive sounding tree planting targets. It needs to overhaul its grant system so as to much better fund Agroforestry and grant aid the planting of shrubs – something I have banged on about for what seems like a life time!

They also need to give better guidance as to the best places to plant new woodland and importantly, where might not be the best place. Finally, they need to fund more tree and shrub nurseries in this country and meanwhile, put in more robust controls over imported saplings, so that we do not introduce further diseases.