In 2016, the afforestation programme in Scotland fell to 4,600ha from an average of 8,000ha over the previous four years (Figure 1). Scotland had planned for a 10,000ha afforestation programme and was dissatisfied even with the 8,000ha average but the poor planting returns in 2016 set the alarm bells ringing.
The reaction by the Scottish government was swift and effective. Within three years, new planting had increased by 140%. How has this transformation of Scotland’s forestry fortunes been achieved?
In Fergus Ewing, Scotland has a cabinet secretary (senior minister) for the rural economy who took a personal interest in turning the afforestation programme around. Last month, he announced that the 10,000ha afforestation target had not only been achieved but had been “smashed” with 11,200ha of new planting achieved.
“This is testament to the Scottish government making forestry a priority and investing and helping growing the industry,” he said.
“The whole tree planting effort has truly been a national endeavour with all forestry interests, both large and small, pulling together.” He regards this as a beginning: “The Scottish Government, as part of its climate change commitments, has already upped the planting targets for the future, rising to 15,000ha a year from 2024/25.”
Led by cabinet secretary Ewing, Scotland adopted a united approach in achieving its afforestation targets with commitment by the Scottish government and its agencies Forestry and Land Scotland and Scottish Forestry, along with farmers and other landowners, NGOs and the Confederation of Forest Industries (Confor) which plays a major role in this success story.
The agreement by government and forestry stakeholders to commission an independent report on Scottish afforestation and to carry out its recommendations has been a vital element in the Scottish resurgence. The “Analysis of Current Arrangements for the Consideration and Approval of Forestry Planting Proposal”, carried out by James Mackinnon CBE, led to “an improved and streamlined applications process, more promotion and better grant packages [which] helped boost tree planting across Scotland,” according to Ewing.
The real strength of the report is its ability to focus on the “commitment to plant 10,000ha per annum” which it says is underpinned by two main factors:
The contribution that trees make to carbon sequestration and Government climate change targets; and Securing stability of timber supply to support a sector that is worth almost £1bn to Scotland’s gross added value (GVA) and creates over 25,000 jobs mostly in rural areas. The social and economic importance of forestry needed little research by Mackinnon as the case had been made by Government, which acknowledges that “the timber processing industry is vital to the economy of rural areas and that the industry is dependent on the supply of quality softwood timber from conifer forests”.
Reducing complexity
Against that background, Mackinnon “was commissioned to analyse the current arrangements and assess the scope for reducing the complexity and increasing the efficiency of the process”.
Mackinnon identified the core issues from the outset, which have echoes with Irish forestry. “There has been a continued failure to meet [the 10,000ha planting] target. The forestry industry has identified complex and bureaucratic approval procedures to obtain grants for new planting through Forestry Commission Scotland as one of the barriers to achieving this rate of planting.”
Mackinnon focuses “on the application processes and the extent to which they could be improved and streamlined”.
He says the operation of the forest grant schemes “must be supported by the improved management of relationships” which have “three key principles”:
Empowerment. Trust. Proportionality. “These principles apply to all participants and stages in the process,” he says. “Indeed, they are the key to an energised and more effective system focused on outcomes rather than inputs or processes.”
In all, Mackinnon presents 20 recommendations. These include separating the design of the planting scheme from the grant application, six recommendations on streamlining woodland creation schemes in relation to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and consultation with communities regarding the impact of planting.
Mackinnon makes recommendations on reducing the times between grant applications and approvals, and states that “requests for information must be clearly justified,” while there should be an understanding by the regulatory body and consultees “of the cost/time implications of additional studies”.
He also recommends the introduction of performance targets “for EIA screening determinations and grant applications” and “planting targets for conservancies should be considered”.
While there are differences between forestry issues in Scotland and Ireland including land ownership structures, planning and state agency involvement, there are many similarities when assessing afforestation trends in both countries.
While cumulative afforestation in Ireland is higher than Scotland over the past 10 years (Figure 1) , the ability of the Scottish government and its stakeholders to confront declining afforestation is markedly different.
Scotland’s plan of action is swift and effective in contrast to Ireland’s lethargy.
Mackinnon’s identification of the following two overarching issues (summarised) which emerged from his review bears an uncanny resemblance to Irish conditions:
The need to recognise the contribution of forestry to a living/working countryside. He says: “It was suggested that forestry’s importance to regional and local economies, particularly in sustaining rural communities where there were few alternative job opportunities was not sufficiently acknowledged. The perception of the Forestry Commission by the industry where the focus is on “ process at the expense of outcomes”. Recommendations on speeding up planting approvals will resonate with Irish stakeholders but Mackinnon’s report is essentially a call for a united approach which is the main lesson to be applied to Ireland. The follow-up call by Secretary Ewing for “a national endeavour” is not only an endorsement of Mackinnon but a government commitment to the afforestation programme.
An invitation to Mackinnon to carry out a similar exercise in Ireland would be a welcome initiative but futile unless backed by a Government commitment and a positive voice at cabinet. It should be noted that since the Mackinnon report was published both the Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland no longer exist.
Since April forestry in Scotland has been fully devolved.
Now, Forestry and Land Scotland, and Scottish Forestry are the two new Scottish government agencies accountable to Scottish ministers and the Scottish parliament.
In 2016, the afforestation programme in Scotland fell to 4,600ha from an average of 8,000ha over the previous four years (Figure 1). Scotland had planned for a 10,000ha afforestation programme and was dissatisfied even with the 8,000ha average but the poor planting returns in 2016 set the alarm bells ringing.
The reaction by the Scottish government was swift and effective. Within three years, new planting had increased by 140%. How has this transformation of Scotland’s forestry fortunes been achieved?
In Fergus Ewing, Scotland has a cabinet secretary (senior minister) for the rural economy who took a personal interest in turning the afforestation programme around. Last month, he announced that the 10,000ha afforestation target had not only been achieved but had been “smashed” with 11,200ha of new planting achieved.
“This is testament to the Scottish government making forestry a priority and investing and helping growing the industry,” he said.
“The whole tree planting effort has truly been a national endeavour with all forestry interests, both large and small, pulling together.” He regards this as a beginning: “The Scottish Government, as part of its climate change commitments, has already upped the planting targets for the future, rising to 15,000ha a year from 2024/25.”
Led by cabinet secretary Ewing, Scotland adopted a united approach in achieving its afforestation targets with commitment by the Scottish government and its agencies Forestry and Land Scotland and Scottish Forestry, along with farmers and other landowners, NGOs and the Confederation of Forest Industries (Confor) which plays a major role in this success story.
The agreement by government and forestry stakeholders to commission an independent report on Scottish afforestation and to carry out its recommendations has been a vital element in the Scottish resurgence. The “Analysis of Current Arrangements for the Consideration and Approval of Forestry Planting Proposal”, carried out by James Mackinnon CBE, led to “an improved and streamlined applications process, more promotion and better grant packages [which] helped boost tree planting across Scotland,” according to Ewing.
The real strength of the report is its ability to focus on the “commitment to plant 10,000ha per annum” which it says is underpinned by two main factors:
The contribution that trees make to carbon sequestration and Government climate change targets; and Securing stability of timber supply to support a sector that is worth almost £1bn to Scotland’s gross added value (GVA) and creates over 25,000 jobs mostly in rural areas. The social and economic importance of forestry needed little research by Mackinnon as the case had been made by Government, which acknowledges that “the timber processing industry is vital to the economy of rural areas and that the industry is dependent on the supply of quality softwood timber from conifer forests”.
Reducing complexity
Against that background, Mackinnon “was commissioned to analyse the current arrangements and assess the scope for reducing the complexity and increasing the efficiency of the process”.
Mackinnon identified the core issues from the outset, which have echoes with Irish forestry. “There has been a continued failure to meet [the 10,000ha planting] target. The forestry industry has identified complex and bureaucratic approval procedures to obtain grants for new planting through Forestry Commission Scotland as one of the barriers to achieving this rate of planting.”
Mackinnon focuses “on the application processes and the extent to which they could be improved and streamlined”.
He says the operation of the forest grant schemes “must be supported by the improved management of relationships” which have “three key principles”:
Empowerment. Trust. Proportionality. “These principles apply to all participants and stages in the process,” he says. “Indeed, they are the key to an energised and more effective system focused on outcomes rather than inputs or processes.”
In all, Mackinnon presents 20 recommendations. These include separating the design of the planting scheme from the grant application, six recommendations on streamlining woodland creation schemes in relation to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and consultation with communities regarding the impact of planting.
Mackinnon makes recommendations on reducing the times between grant applications and approvals, and states that “requests for information must be clearly justified,” while there should be an understanding by the regulatory body and consultees “of the cost/time implications of additional studies”.
He also recommends the introduction of performance targets “for EIA screening determinations and grant applications” and “planting targets for conservancies should be considered”.
While there are differences between forestry issues in Scotland and Ireland including land ownership structures, planning and state agency involvement, there are many similarities when assessing afforestation trends in both countries.
While cumulative afforestation in Ireland is higher than Scotland over the past 10 years (Figure 1) , the ability of the Scottish government and its stakeholders to confront declining afforestation is markedly different.
Scotland’s plan of action is swift and effective in contrast to Ireland’s lethargy.
Mackinnon’s identification of the following two overarching issues (summarised) which emerged from his review bears an uncanny resemblance to Irish conditions:
The need to recognise the contribution of forestry to a living/working countryside. He says: “It was suggested that forestry’s importance to regional and local economies, particularly in sustaining rural communities where there were few alternative job opportunities was not sufficiently acknowledged. The perception of the Forestry Commission by the industry where the focus is on “ process at the expense of outcomes”. Recommendations on speeding up planting approvals will resonate with Irish stakeholders but Mackinnon’s report is essentially a call for a united approach which is the main lesson to be applied to Ireland. The follow-up call by Secretary Ewing for “a national endeavour” is not only an endorsement of Mackinnon but a government commitment to the afforestation programme.
An invitation to Mackinnon to carry out a similar exercise in Ireland would be a welcome initiative but futile unless backed by a Government commitment and a positive voice at cabinet. It should be noted that since the Mackinnon report was published both the Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland no longer exist.
Since April forestry in Scotland has been fully devolved.
Now, Forestry and Land Scotland, and Scottish Forestry are the two new Scottish government agencies accountable to Scottish ministers and the Scottish parliament.
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: