Boosting woodland creation and timber security

 

Key recommendations: 

• Establish Foresty Creation Zones in target locations around England.

• Commit to a new phase of the Nature for Climate Fund.

• Phase Woodland Carbon Code units into the UK Emission Trading Scheme.

• Regularly review the payment rates for tree planting in the uplands.

​

Our path towards net zero emissions by 2050 is lined with trees. Recognition of the sheer amount of timber products we will require is recognised in the UK’s carbon budgets, and the government has set out a plan to adopt it in its Timber in Construction Roadmap which was published in 2023 and warmly welcomed by the forestry sector. The more things that can be done to a single piece of timber, the more jobs and business opportunities can be created up and down the supply chain. But meeting our demand for timber must be done carefully.

 

As the global demand for timber continues to increase, so too does the risk posed to the planet’s most famous and ecologically important forests. Currently heavily reliant on imported timber to resource our decarbonisation needs across the economy, it would be unrealistic and undesirable to expect the UK to meet its entire domestic demand for timber through domestic supply. But it is prudent to meet a larger proportion of demand through domestic forestry than we currently do, a view echoed by both the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. 

 

Against the backdrop of a global race to decarbonise, ensuring the sustainability of what we continue to import is only part of the battle: we must also create a more appealing offer to businesses wishing to plant in England. There are some easy steps to take in the short term that can, at the very least, send positive signals about tree planting, such as streamlining environmental impact assessments in designated low-sensitivity regions and simplifying the government grant making process. This will reduce the risk posed by long waiting times and unnecessary hurdles for land managers wanting to do the right thing.

 

Land that is unsuitable for growing food, because of its poor soil quality or harsh weather, can be well-suited to growing trees. Our uplands are one such environment. Many of our uplands were once carpeted in thick forests, but their tree cover is now minimal.

 

The challenging geography of our uplands makes arable farming impractical, so upland farms are overwhelmingly livestock-orientated. Admiration for upland farmers’ rugged adversity to their terrain, and the dry stone walls which have become a familiar feature on the landscape, has worked to embed them into the culture of the communities that surround them. But upland farming is increasingly unprofitable. England is transitioning away from a system of area-based farm support payments and towards one which rewards the provision of public goods. This provides a great opportunity for upland farming to diversify and adopt new practices, sustaining its place in the British landscape for generations to come. Without action, the sector will face increasing financial pressure, and voices which question the long-term viability of its existing business model will grow louder. The integration of trees into the farmed landscape is one of the many ways that rural communities can harness nature to diversify and strengthen their income both now and in the future.

 

Political concern for the UK’s food security is particularly heightened following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The independent review into the food system in 2021 found that the least productive 20% of land produced just three percent of the nation’s calorific intake. As the 2030 deadline to reverse the decline in biodiversity looms into view, it is right that we ramp up our efforts to increase tree planting, and that we ensure this is not to the detriment of our food security. The uplands are some of the areas best placed to do this. 

 

Any change which does come, however, needs to be done with consent. Welsh farmers’ protests against the devolved government’s rigid tree planting targets show the importance of working with - not against - farmers. The Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMs) and their  ‘public money for public goods’ model in England provide a good template for encouraging a gradual shift towards more sustainable farming practices and improving tree cover across our precious landscapes. If we can create the right financial incentives, across all available public and private schemes, to improve tree cover, we can secure the future of upland farming, build more profitable businesses, and enhance our natural inheritance. 

 

While recent efforts by the government to designate new national forests are certainly welcome, the entrepreneurial action we require for tree planting objectives will require a less prescriptive approach. Taking a leaf out of its own book, the government should copy the model it has created with Investment Zones to establish a joined up approach to tree planting in areas of the UK most suited to it, catalysing private sector action and investment in the process. 

 

Tree planters, commercial and otherwise, wishing to work in these designated Forestry Creation Zones would benefit from a streamlining of the much maligned application process for woodland creation and be fast tracked toward the relevant funding pots across the forestry supply chain. The Forestry Commission has already gone some way in enabling this through its data-enabled woodland creation sensitivity map which it uses to fast-track woodland creation applications. The England Woodland Creation Offer now affords an additional £1,100 per hectare for tree planting on low-sensitivity land, but we can go further.

​

In addition, rather than just using sensitivity mapping in reaction to applications for woodland creation funds, we need proactive identification of the most suitable areas and outreach to land managers located within them to promote the available grants and financial opportunities. Designating such Forestry Creation Zones would likely skew towards parts of the north of England where the land is most suited to mass afforestation and less suited to agriculture. 

 

This comes, of course, with an important caveat that this would not be a free-for-all, but rather that half the battle would already be won with these zones marked out as ripe for reforestation. The government’s long-awaited Land Use Framework should provide a basis upon which to determine the most suitable regions of England to incentivise to undergo this transition to forestry, and to ensure that ecologically-sensitive areas are protected. 

 

Farmers in upland areas must be bought into this land use change and have a clear path to access the financial rewards of getting on board. The government can do this by ensuring tree planting standards offered through the new system of Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) payments are competitive and appealing to upland farmers specifically, and that the pricing is reviewed regularly in the context of delivering on our targets, whilst also ensuring that food security is not compromised. As the government’s farm subsidy transition has demonstrated, an essential part of woodland creation financing is that it must benefit the tenant as well as the landowner.

 

This need for joined-up action across the public, private, and voluntary sectors is especially important when considering the overzealous incentivisation of tree planting in the past, most notably in the 1980s, that led to the wrong trees in the wrong places with little care or thought for the biodiversity of the forests being created.

 

The Woodland Carbon Code (WCC) is a government-backed standard for woodland creation projects in the UK in order for them to be quantified, verified, and subsequently traded as carbon credits. First established in 2011, this private market for nature is a reliable and well-respected source of compensation for the large UK companies that are mandated to report their greenhouse gas emissions. When operating effectively, this carbon market can reduce the reliance on public spending for tree planting of all descriptions, rewarding especially the fast-growing, carbon-rich conifer species. 

 

The code has, quite rightly, become increasingly reflective of the effect that monoculture forests, as with all monoculture crops, can have on the ability to sustain biodiversity. The need to mitigate this is reflected in the UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) which allows for up to 85% of a project to be planted with conifer species, and is also factored into the environmental impact assessments required to gain project approval. This also reflects the general need to have mixed, uneven-aged woods with no clear felling, which can support nature and commercial forestry.

 

The WCC’s efforts are noble but, after over ten years of operation, it has not delivered the desired tree planting outcome we need at the scale our national target now requires. The per unit price is simply too low to provide a big enough incentive for the market to get involved. This is unsurprising given its voluntary nature and has resulted in less than 60% of suitable land in the UK being considered economically viable for woodland creation, according to a policy paper published by King’s College London.

 

But it does not need to be this way. In fact, the economics of tree planting could be improved significantly through its inclusion in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Doing so could raise the price of an individual credit by up to 67%, becoming the financial incentive many land managers are looking for to start planting trees. This, in turn, would have the potential to remove and store up to 19 million tonnes of carbon emissions from our atmosphere, helping us in our efforts to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

 

It is vital that all WCC units delivered under the ETS reflect genuine emissions abatement. Strong standards are needed to make sure both that payments under the scheme reflect new abatement that would not have happened without the payment, and that those issuing credits are required to replace units that have been destroyed or damaged by weather events or pests. A gradual phase-in will help to prevent any downward pressure put on the ETS price, which could risk blunting incentives to decarbonise in other industries.

 

For the sake of our natural environment and efforts to fight climate change, and the national targets that underpin them both, the UK should phase the WCC into the ETS as part of our admission of more negative emissions technologies, like direct air capture. Doing so will help to deliver the habitat restoration we need, at the scale we require it, strengthening rural economies.