Forest futures

When I started my career working for a forestry management company in the mid-1970s most people in the industry believed that the only purpose for woods was to grow as much timber as possible. A ‘good’ tree was one that grew fast, straight and round – preferably conifer. Trees that didn’t conform or were getting old were felled, and interfering beasts or plants were killed, excluded or treated with chemicals. Gaps were quickly planted up (unless needed for rearing pheasants) and areas too wet to grow ‘proper’ trees were drained. Landscape and wildlife benefits were secondary to timber production and access meant people staying on paths. We knew what was needed and everything seemed controllable.

Today, as head of forestry at the National Trust, it’s clear to me that things have changed – and not just on our own estates. The ‘Great Storm’ of 1987 destroyed many of our ‘wonderful’ investment plantations, and observations of how nature responded to this event changed a lot of people’s thinking about how woodlands should be valued.

Gaps and wet areas are now cherished and woods are managed primarily for their landscape value, to preserve archaeological features, for biodiversity and for people to enjoy. If some timber or fuelwood arises as a by-product, then everyone is even happier. Ancient trees are celebrated for their unique biological and cultural values – the most important ones even have individual management. Society also looks at woods in a much wider context – recognising their vital role in soil conservation and water quality and quantity.

So what does this mean for the National Trust, which ‘holds in perpetuity’ nearly 25,000 hectares of woodland, as well as possibly a million or so trees in its parks, gardens and agricultural land? The Trust is certainly an advocate – indeed a pioneer – of letting nature have more of a role in determining what goes on in woodlands. It also recognises its huge responsibility to look after the tens of thousands of ancient trees we own, by preventing avoidable losses and ensuring there are sufficient replacements developing. But while the Trust’s main aims may be conservation and access, it does harvest 20,000m3 of timber annually – about 20% of what has actually grown. This goes to estates for countryside and building conservation work and to heat buildings, and the rest is sold on the open market.

But trying to predict what we, as a nation, will want of our trees in another 30, 50 or 100 years’ time isn’t easy. After all, we thought we’d got it right back in the 1970s. Just a few years ago much was said about the importance of ‘local’ trees, but now scientists are looking into the merit of introducing trees from places in Europe which may have a similar climate to that which the UK could experience in the future. It’s also possible that woodlands left more to their own devices may have a greater resilience to climate change and the associated increase in pests and diseases, so we need to take this into account too.

We should also be asking ourselves where the UK’s future building materials and energy are coming from. Will we be able to continue to import more than 80% of our wood requirements as we now do? Even if we can, are we comfortable with the overall environmental impacts of felling timber around the world and transporting it back here? If not, should we be once again planning to increase the production of tangible goods such as timber, energy and fibre from our woods?

We know that trees can provide us with many benefits. Of course they take a long time to reach maturity, and they live a long time too. So our decisions now will do a lot to determine what future generations can get from their woodlands.

The National Trust is a Forum for the Future partner.

6 January 2008

Ray Hawes