WHY, when we are in a climatic emergency are we planting trees which will take years to show a very limited benefit?

Carbon sequestration is the main aim and while planting oaks and other hardwoods will show a small benefit, it will take many years and be limited to the deciduous growing season.

Water retention, for flood prevention, will be limited with deciduous trees, especially in the winter when they are leafless.

Home timber production would make huge energy savings on transport as we import almost 90% of our wood fibre requirements from all over the world. Hardwood trees will contribute very little in the way of timber if at all.

The answer is to plant fast-growing conifers wherever possible and especially in the catchment areas of flood prone rivers, where the year-round dense foliage and underlying mat of cast needles can hold large volumes of water for many days. In a little as four to five years the plantations will be functioning effectively, compared with 20 to 30 years for hardwoods, if they survive.

Forestry Commission statistics show that Sitka Spruce can achieve almost four times the yield of English oak, with the relevant carbon storage.

Yes, it will change the landscape, but for the better with a more biodiverse habitat than the miles and miles of bare, rarely-visited moorland.

We need to decide whether this situation is, as they say,  an emergency or not, and bite the bullet.

In 1919 a body was formed in an emergency to replace our depleated timber resources – this was called The Forestry Commission.

We now need another “Commission”, with specific directives, to act quickly and save a drastic situation before it is too late.

Plant hardwoods by all means, but not under the claim of effective carbon sequestration or flood prevention.

GORDON LITTLE
Forester (Retired)