Tree planting shortfall

Sir, – I was interested in your article, ‘Aiming for forestry growth’ in the October 1 issue, in which Rural Economy Cabinet Secretary, Fergus Ewing, underlined his commitment to planting 10,000 ha of new woodland in Scotland every year.
The last time we planted 10,000 ha of trees in Scotland was in 2001, and for the 10 years prior to that, the levels planted where consistently 10-12,000 ha. Since 2001, the area achieved has always been less than this and in many years, much less. 
The Scottish Forest Strategy in 2006 anticipated planting 15,000 ha a year until 2040 to give us 25% woodland cover. That was quickly abandoned when it was discovered that such a level was unlikely to be funded and the sector did not have the capacity to deliver. 
If that target was being delivered, we would by now have planted an additional 101,000 ha over and above what has actually been achieved, or a quarter of a million acres, or 200m trees. The cost would have been an additional £400m.
Since 2012, we have had the more achievable target of 10,000 ha a year for 10 years, increasing Scottish woodland cover from 18.5% to 19%. 
However, we are not achieving this either, being 13,500 ha behind schedule in just five years. Tree planting levels achieved have been as follows: 2012 – 9000 ha, 2013 – 7000 ha, 2014 – 8300 ha, 2015 – 7600 ha, 2016 – 4600 ha.
If you do the sums, the levels being delivered are approximately what the funding available will pay for. The sharp decline in 2016 is almost certainly a result of the grant rates for native woodlands declining and increasing conifer planting grants. 
The result has been that native woodlands have reduced by 3000 ha and conifer planting has stayed the same. Many people are now reluctant to plant conifer plantations, preferring native woodlands for their versatility even if they, in theory, produce less timber.
So, what does all this mean? There are plenty of people in Scotland who want to plant trees, including many farmers. Most people can plant trees without it affecting other parts of their operations, and many see the overall benefits. 
The area achieved is constrained mainly by funding available and in the last year or so, the grant system has also proven to be a problem, with many millions of trees in nurseries reportedly being destroyed because the paperwork had not come through. 
Those who think this is nothing to do with them should note that woodland creation is a labour intensive business, supplying work for digger drivers, fencers and planters, many of whom are agricultural contractors who also run farming businesses. 
What other land based activity would require an investment of £3000-4000 per ha? The cost of not getting this right is the £400m to date over 10 years, mentioned above and the likelihood that investment in new sawmills will not take place because the future timber resource to feed them is unlikely to be there. In a £1bn a year economy in Scotland, this is a big deal.
None of this has anything to do with Brexit and there is no point in saying we are planting more than the English. We have always done that.
If Fergus Ewing wants to plant more trees, he needs to bring more resources to the table. If funding constraints do not allow for that, then we need to look elsewhere. 
It wouldn’t be difficult to get private funding to plant trees as many companies are keen to demonstrate their environmental credentials, and with a bit of thought, this could be channelled through existing mechanisms, with Forestry Commission still retaining oversight.
The likelihood is that with everything else going on in the world, including problems in Scottish agriculture, that this isn’t really all that important for politicians. But, if it is, then getting it right is a relatively straightforward funding exercise, and some time invested in looking at alternatives should prove to be time well spent. 
The 25,000 people whose livelihoods depend on this would welcome a change in thinking and a better sense of direction.