Having spent many years working in forestry. A Civil servant working in forestry mgt. I’ve planted Probably more trees than all of these MP’s from all parties combined.
In the early 1982 I visited sites in Scotland that were areas of high tree cover. These forests were planted as a result of ongoing timber shortages since WW1 WW11. At a time in the 1950’s/60’s when poorly thought out planting of lowland sites and mountains, which made viable mechanised timber extraction virtually impossible by the 1980’s
2002 I visited similar sites in Scotland, only to see with the ongoing development of modern/advanced tree harvesting machines. Some of these forests were still uneconomical to harvest. However a change in government tact, new forests were being planted on brownfield sites and on land of poor conservation value throughout the UK.
My concern with today’s politicians claiming they will plant another X million more trees is. Where will they plant them? If urban development is to be differed from flood plains etc.
Will they expect these trees to successfully grow to maturity if they are planted on floodplains?
What type of trees and for what end purpose? To win votes? To stabilise groundwater runoff? To offset climate change? For future timber resources?
will agricultural land be requested to meet these boasted numbers?
We have national forest’s cover in the UK already, which includes ‘free public access’ for recreation to much.
Will these new Party proposals support ‘private forests’ where public access is denied and the landowner takes all future profits from these resources?
I’m all in favour of more “appropriate” tree cover. Just not convinced this has been thought out.