Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


We haven't given up on land sell-off, insist SNP

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 20 March 2009
By DAVID MADDOX
Scottish Political Correspondent
A SELL-OFF of public land to pay for new forests is still on the Scottish Government's agenda, MSPs were told yesterday.
After a government U-turn last week on plans to lease out large tracks of Forestry Commission land for 75 years, Roseanna Cunningham, the new environment minister, told parliament that the "status quo is not an option".

In a debate called by Labo
ur on the future of forestry in Scotland, she said that ways need to be found to pay for a massive programme of tree planting to help tackle climate change.

She told MSPs that the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) of £23 million per year for woodland creation was not enough.

"To achieve our ambition for woodland creation, we must increase this," she said.

"We cannot simply raid other parts of the SRDP pot, or other parts of the Scottish Government budget."

She added: "This is why we are now asking Forestry Commission Scotland to explore further use of well-established arrangements (introduced in 2005] whereby it sells areas of least public benefit to raise money for investment in new woodlands."

The Forestry Commission Scotland currently selects land for sale where there are low public benefits, such as low access and use and no significant natural and cultural assets that would be put at risk.

The original 75-year lease plans were in the Climate Change Bill consultation.

It was proposed because the Scottish Government wants to increase its target of land covered by forests from 17 per cent for 2050 to 25 per cent.





The full article contains 269 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 March 2009 9:55 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forestry
 
1

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 20/03/2009 08:17:48
Roseanna Cunningham can cover Scotland from top to tail in forest and it will make no difference to the world's climate. The climate will go on changing as it always has.
As for the Forestry Commission selling off bits of land with poor access etc !! oh yes! Only if your face fits. I tried to buy just such a piece, the only access was through my property and I got a flat refusal.
If Roseanna Cunningham is so keen on trees, why is she allowing the Forestry Commission to cut down several thousand acres in order to put up wind turbines and what is happening to the money from these power stations?
2

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/03/2009 08:34:07
How to raise money AND help sequester CO2 in one easy step?

Restore the tax on sporting estates that was removed by the Conservative Government in the early 1990s. That also has the added bonus that much of the money raised will come from overseas, since many of Scotland's sporting estates have overseas owners.

Sporting estates require either overstocking with red deer or maintaining grouse moors.

The former results in lack of tree regeneration, degraded ground vegetation and impoverished and eroding soils. All of those factors minimise carbon retention.

The latter involves regular burning of heather, with similar effects with respect to carbon storage.

Reducing the impact of sporting estates is the low hanging fruit of carbon sequestration: allowing the land, with its vegetation and soils, to recover by greatly reducing grazing pressure and eliminating burning is the cheapest, simplest, quickest measure that can be taken.

All it takes is a government with the guts to take on the vested interests intent on retaining a Victorian land management system that has always been environmentally damaging and is now wholly outdated and dangerously at odds with the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions.
3

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 20/03/2009 08:56:14
In order for this to work we must:

Grow the trees, cut them down then throw them into deep-ish water, preferably fresh water.

Now, Slioch will know, I had a rant a wee whiley ago regarding this whereby I came up with the plan that we should indeed grow the trees then barge them out to the middle of the Atlantic and sink them. That way, the CO2 is locked away for thousands of years.

Now, there is plenty of research to support my theory, so tell me, what's the flaw?
4

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/03/2009 09:12:13
#3 Dave From Barra

Have a look at this article, Dave:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7924373.stm

With your agricultural interests I think you will be attracted by the possibility that we can essentially do the same thing as you suggest, but with the added benefit of increased soil fertility. It also could work with any organic matter - agricultural and forestry wastes, sewage, domestic waste etc.
5

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 20/03/2009 09:45:15
Slioch @4

Hmmm, always been an advocate of using forestry as a soil improver.

In fact, the FC use a rotation of Sitka Spurce on peat soils for the first rotation to improve the soil structure etc for the second rotation of hard wood.

For me, forestry is merely slow motion agricutlure.

However, I believe we need land for people too i.e. for food and recreation.

Interestingly, on a forestry type tour in Germany many moons ago, Lower Saxony had a 60/40% ratio of forestry to agricutlure (both of which then lent themselves to recreation).

They were 100% self sufficient on soft wood needs, 80% self sufficient on hard wood needs and 95% self sufficient on food needs.

Not bad, eh?

Mind you, relating you your first comment, thier land tenureship is a bitty more even than ours. i.e. owned by the people, not by a person in another country.
6

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 20/03/2009 19:31:46
I believe that some 51% of Austria's land area is now forested, an increase of several per cent over the past couple of decades. The Bundesforstverwaltung (Federal Forestry Commission) is the largest individual forest owner, having taken over the former Habsburg crown forests (although the Habsburgs are still among the largest forest owners in respect of their private estates). A large proportion of the small farmers and Alpine crofters own woodland on which they can capitalise, but much of this is tied up in "Bannwald", forests in mountainous areas where felling is forbidden for environmental reasons - avalanche protection and so on. Bannwald makes up around half of the country's total forest stock, which neutralises its direct economic value. Another point is that clear felling is banned - only small areas may be felled at once, in order to allow natural regeneration. Nobody needs to replant felled areas in the Vienna Woods (about 600 square miles), because the beech and oak stock grow again like weeds within a few years, although conifers have been introduced in some locations. I once asked the late Konrad Lorenz, the ethologist, what he thought about this; his reply, in which "Schweinerei" was one of the milder terms, indicated that he considered the interests of the fire salamander (a beautiful orange and black lizard that likes leaf mould) took priority over those of area foresters trying to balance their books.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.