Thoughts on the Glen Affric forestry management plan

All of the land above Comar Wood is managed by Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS, formerly known as Forestry Commission Scotland). Their land extends west up Glen Affric, of which they manage a large part. They are currently updating their ten-year management plan for this area and as part of the process they are obliged to hold a consultation. I was keen to read their proposals. I was viewing from the perspective of being a neighbouring land owner, someone who enjoys exploring the local woodlands and someone interested in the future of forestry in this area and in Scotland in general.

I went along to the community drop-in session but then decided that sending FLS a written response would be an easier way to put my opinions forward. I thought I’d summarise my response here because it illustrates my current views on a few aspects of forestry and woodland management. I might blog about some of these topics in more detail at a later date.

The proposed Affric management plan

The proposed management plan for Glen Affric can be found on the consultation web page here. To summarise, the long-term aim of management for Glen Affric, including areas east to Cannich, is to remove all non-native conifers and encourage the woodland to revert to Caledonian pinewood or other native woodland types as appropriate. As I understand it, FLS has a general policy that any of their land designated as being within the ‘Caledonian Pinewood Zone’ (CPZ) should be allowed to revert to native pinewood (areas are designated as CPZ where there is evidence of remnants of native pinewood, plus an added buffer of 600 m). They also have a policy that areas of their land designated as plantation on ancient woodland site (PAWS) should be restored to native woodland. Most of the forested land included in the plan falls into one or both of these designations.

The approach to achieve this aim is to clear-fell the non-native conifers over the next 35 years. Areas to be clear-felled (coupes) are mostly between 20 and 40 hectares. The total plan area is 17,000 hectares, although 70 percent of this is open hill ground. Almost half of the felling is planned within the next decade, when about 300,000 tonnes will be felled (equivalent to about 12,000 timber lorry loads). FLS are hoping that Scots pine will naturally regenerate in the felled areas. It cannot be planted in the CPZ because of the risk of introducing the disease Dothistroma needle blight to the existing native pinewoods. Other native trees will be planted.

My consultation response

I like the plan’s overall vision for restoring and expanding the Caledonian pinewoods of Glen Affric and I am very supportive of allowing it to become a wild landscape. I focussed my response to the consultation on the area of forest above Comar Wood, extending east towards Cannich and west to Fasnakyle. This is the area that affects me most and with which I am most familiar, and I had some concerns about the planned approach there. It is currently a commercial plantation that includes areas of mature conifers (mainly Norway/Sitka spruce, Douglas fir, Scots pine and larch) as well as some small remnants of native woodland. There are also recently clear-felled areas and previously clear-felled areas that are starting to regenerate. Below is a summary of the main points of my response and FLS’s reply.

Extensive clear-fells

I am concerned that clear-felling large coupes will be damaging to the existing flora, fauna, soils and soil organisms, as well as being unsightly. Although being done to achieve the long-term objective of native woodland restoration, is such a destructive approach really necessary? I suggested work could be done much more gradually and sensitively, avoiding sudden mass habitat change. If felling was done in smaller areas, neighbouring woodland cover could be retained to maintain continuity of habitat. The gradual transformation of the forest would result in greater habitat diversity with a mosaic of small patches of woodland of different ages evolving side by side. This would be beneficial to a range of wildlife, visually pleasing and interesting to walk through.

In reply to this point FLS said that clear-felling was necessary because otherwise the non-native conifers would continue to seed and regenerate and it would be very difficult to eliminate them. I agree that they would continue to regenerate but would argue that it is not necessarily a bad thing to have non-native conifers continuing to regenerate (as discussed below). Why the urgency to eliminate these species when it could be done more gradually with less habitat disruption? FLS also justified clear-felling by stating that open areas are needed for native birch and pine to regenerate because they are light-demanding. This is true, but the size of the proposed clear-fells (tens of hectares) is far larger than the size of open area needed for birch and pine to regenerate (about half a hectare).

Loss of mature trees

Most of the mature trees in the area concerned are non-native conifers and will therefore be felled within the next two decades. Although not native species, I believe these large trees are still an important part of the woodland, providing important habitats, micro-climates and food for wildlife. Personally, I also enjoy the experience of walking through woodland with mature trees and feel it would be a shame if this opportunity were lost from most of the woodlands near to Cannich.

The FLS reply to this point was that by the time all these mature conifers have been felled, other young trees will be 15-20 years old, so starting to mature. There will be some areas of Scots pine retained in the long-term. This did not really make me change my mind because I still believe there is benefit to retaining more of the existing mature trees.

Complete removal of non-native conifers

I questioned FLS about whether their policy of eliminating all non-native tree species in a relatively short time period is a good idea. My argument is that it will result in significant habitat loss in the short to medium term. Although the habitat in these plantations of non-native trees is not particularly diverse at present, it is at least woodland cover. Small interventions over a relatively short timescale could make it much more diverse and beneficial to a wide range of woodland species. The FLS approach of clear-felling and re-planting will take many decades to achieve mature, diverse woodland.

Conifers are a beneficial type of tree to have in a woodland – for example providing winter cover for wildlife, seeds as food sources and their roots host particular types of fungi. Non-native conifers can be of benefit just as much as the native Scots pine. Given the potential for disease or climatic impacts to affect woodlands in the future, it does not seem sensible to rely on only one conifer species (Scots pine) when other species of conifer are already here. They could be used to an advantage to create a diverse woodland for the future.

FLS responded to this comment by agreeing that non-native conifers can be beneficial but that it is their policy to restore the Caledonian pinewood to truly native species.

Lack of future productive forestry

My last main point was my worry about the lack of future productive forestry in the proposed plan. I agree that much of Glen Affric’s forest should be left as non-intervention, wild land. However, I also feel it is important that an ecologically sensitive form of productive forestry is retained to provide future generations with meaningful local jobs and livelihoods, as well as a local timber resource. The country as a whole also needs more homegrown quality timber and this area is obviously capable of producing good trees.

Accessible areas near to Cannich could be managed productively without detracting from the overall objective of woodland restoration. This would require a change from typical modern forestry practices to a more sensitive and sustainable approach (i.e. continuous cover forestry). Such an approach would allow the forest to be both productive and an excellent habitat for wildlife.

I suggested FLS could take the opportunity to pioneer a more ecologically sound type of productive forestry as part of the Affric woodland restoration plan. Through this they could help to restore a local forestry/timber industry and promote a sustainable human population as well as a rewilded forest.

FLS had several points in response to my concern. They indicated that their priority for Glen Affric is nature conservation not timber production, but that there will be a very small amount of timber output continuing. They also mentioned complaints from the community about timber lorries. My point is that they could have a part of the forest that combines nature conservation with timber production. Timber lorries should not be so much of a problem because timber would be harvested in small quantities (with more focus on quality) and they would not affect Tomich, where there is currently most concern.

What FLS had to say

I wasn’t sure whether I would get a response to my comments, but a while after I emailed them FLS sent back a written response (which I have summarised above). I was especially surprised when the forester coordinating the Affric management plan, Ben Griffin, suggested meeting me to discuss the points. We met on a windy October day at the old hill fort just above Comar Wood. He told me that he thought I had made some good points, but there wasn’t much scope for incorporating any of them because the plan needs to follow wider FLS policies. This then just left him to reiterate the points made in the written response.

Interestingly, he said I was the only local person he had spoken to in relation to the plan who liked the non-native trees – apparently everyone else was happy to see them go and to get native ones back. The general bad press around non-native trees is something I plan to explore further in the future. Thinking about the Affric management plan has actually probably softened my feelings towards my own, non-native spruce trees in Comar Wood (which I think had already been happening anyway).

I found it interesting and useful to engage in the consultation and think I learnt quite a lot as a result. I doubt the plan will change much, if at all, as a result of my comments, which is fair enough as I am just one person. However, I’m still glad I put my arguments across.