Why mass tree planting is bad
I absolutely hate mass tree planting!
People are obsessed with tree planting from a climate change point of view when they should really be focusing entirely on biodiversity and achieving prime ecosystems. Any benefit in terms of sequestering carbon can be seen as a bonus. If the ecosystem is healthy and functioning to its full ability then so will its role on climate change. Not the other way round!
Tree planting is huge at the moment on a global scale. It's been going on for millennia; from hunter-gathers poking Hazel and Willow whips in the ground to encourage more material for arrows and fire drills etc. to the Roman's introduction of Walnut and Sweet Chestnut to "increase the pallet" but the 'tree planting movement' and experimenting with species only really started from the 1600s onwards in order to provide timbre for the bows of ships to coffins. Oak, ash, beech, elm and sweet chestnut were the main hard woods used. and King Henry VIII's new Hunting Wood - the New Forest. Elsewhere in the world the Amazon Rainforest for instance has had surprising. And during the World Wars woodland was quickly becoming cleared to fuel the wars and replaced by fast growing conifer species (a near example is part of Leigh Woods). However, today the situation is entirely different. Tree planting has turned from a commercial (i.e. plantations) and recreational activity of ornamental aspect to a truely propostrous outcome of 'saving the world' from climate change. - mass tree planting for creating new woodland.
Now, from an outsiders point of view many 'eco warriors' ("cringe") would preach about 'how good tree planting is for the environment and the planet' (in a whiny way).
Last winter I spent time doing the unthinkable - I helped One Tree Per Child at a number of sites. taking the opportunity to ask questions and essentially go under cover to see the process in greater detail. I must say I did not hold back on my opinions. I outwardly said I'm against it. What did I get from the end of it? Had my opinion changed? Absolutely not! In fact it made it about 10 times stronger!
For plantations trees of course have to be planted. Not merely to grow identical lines of a selected species on mass but also to produce the most desired straight symetrical trunks in a way that is both highly efficient and easy to harvest - it's agriculture. But when it comes to creating new woodland (for wildlife) then it's obsurd.
Tree planting for plantations has translated into creating new woodland. The same techniques and equipment are used without actually understanding how woodlands form and function.
It may come as a surprise to many because tree planting is associated with 'doing a good deed for the planet' and 'saving the world', when in reality tree planting in most cases can be extremely damaging.
There is also the underlying concept that if "we removed the trees then we must physically replace them" rather than letting nature repair itself. Humans are such control freaks!
Planting trees is making future woodlands weak and less able to function and perform nearly as well as they otherwise could.
Please stop mass tree-planting! The following may be surprising to a lot of people but planting trees is not the right way to go about creating new woodland. We certainly need more but it should only be achieved through managed natural succession.
Planting trees on mass and especially in species-rich locations (as is often the case) is seriously damaging and frankly the whole movement is a 'green wash' the uneducated have got caught up in - spread through media like wildfire and boosted by 'squabling' companies, battling to be the 'greenest'. Sadly even respectable charities have jumped the bandwagon and now promote it as the silver bullet to 'fixing' nature.
We are facing the most challenging time in Human History.
Now is not the time to mess it up!
Planting trees is not how nature works!
Why is it bad?
Planting trees:
-
introduces foreign material; spoiling the gene pool of a given locality's indigenous populations, and 'corrupting' the intricate - locally evolved relationship with the sites exact conditions. Whether the saplings originates from seed sourced elsewhere in the UK or much worse, from outside the British Isles; unique populations are then 'contaminated'. For example what makes "that Avon Gorge, Bristol Dogwood unique is at risk of being destroyed the minute that Scottish Dogwood sapling enters its proximity". Even when supplied by reputable companies dodgy foreign taxa always slips in. Turkey Oak often comes in with English Oak, Various-leaved Hawthorn with Common Hawthorn, Southern Dogwood with Common Dogwood.
-
Damages the complex soil biology in the process which takes an extremely long time to recover (even with minimal disturbance); causing less than potential output resulting in such as mycelium-tree relationships - potential growth rate and carbon sequestration - the new woodlands ability to function to its fullest as a whole is greatly reduced.
-
Creates a weak checked woodland. Transplanting is a major shock. Bear-root saplings come with severed tap-roots - the trees main anchorage. The trees are weak and prone to disease and the elements (especially the wind).
-
Skips stages in plant succession - a huge chunk of biodiversity from grassland to scrub misses out in the process
-
Disease. There is no true knowing where trees are sourced. Foreign species and variants are always coming in and mix-ups are far more common than not, whether originating from elsewhere in the UK or far worse; from other countries. For the very same reason that Dutch elm disease decimated the UK (brought in with infected plants from Canada) and Ash dieback is currently doing so (though it may have blown in naturally from Europe, thousands of infected Ash saplings were being imported from infected parts of Europe until a ban in 2012 and in turn it is thought to have been introduced to Europe from Asia)
Having now gone through a number of tree epidemics and having recently experienced are own version you'd think someone would be cleaver enough to put two and two together but nothing's changed. Bio security is absolutely non-existant. It's only a matter of time before the next one arrives. What's next? Oaks?
-
Death rate is extremely high. From my observation it's common for over 60% to not make it in the first year.
-
Costs a lot of money and is inefficient - a waste of time and energy when it could be put to far better use elsewhere restoring habitats not ruining what's left of them!
-
Creates unnecessary waste - the recourses used - stakes, mulch mats, wood chip, plastic guards etc.
-
Ultimately the result is a weak woodland less functioning with reduced carbon sequestration and able to cope with weather extremes and combat climate change
However with natural succession all of the above problems are eradicated. The process is incredibly quick and easy. Very little work is needed except for removing any non-natives which colonise such as Cotoneaster, Holm Oak etc. or in areas with livestock or where deer or visitor numbers are high; areas may need to be fenced off to prevent trampling and grazing. That's it! The process varies from site to site in lowland sheltered areas it is quicker (especially if woodland exists near by) than in more exposed hilly districts but generally within just 3 years brambles and the first trees should start to appear. After 10 years the scrub stage should be in full swing with some shrubs reaching over 2m. After another 10 years it should be mature scrub starting to feel like woodland. At 30 years a young woodland should have developed. Because different species colonise at different times the result is a far more varied mosaic, replicating the structure of mature woodland from an early age. Not a monoculture of trees of the same age.
People seem to forget that nature is more than capable of recovering if we allow it to. Woodland was here long before us!
It has the exact opposite effect of tackling the biodiversity / climate emergency collective. It is the latest threat to our never-ending list .
Nature is so much stronger than is given credit for and this is yet another example where our irritable habit to 'take control' has extended to. Sometimes we have to just step back and give nature a chance. Not try to supress it! Wake up!
Creating woodland for the primary goal of tackling climate change is pointless. Biodiversity must come first. If you focus on creating a healthy ecosystem (which tree planting does not) which functions well - then is when the added bonus of sequestring carbon can be made apparent. The current thinking is in reverse and the result is diabolical crap weak stunted with no structure and easily prone to suffering in weather extremes.
I'm constantly seeing 'eco' groups doing scrub clearance and making the place look 'neat and tidy,' deeming brambles as evil and the next minute holding hands jumping up and down around the trees they've just planted with gleening smiles and rosy cheeks. It just doesn't make any sense! It just shows that the days of societies subconcious obsession to control and hate certain things is has translated into a new realm and lives on stronger than ever!
All tree planting does is create a false sense of hope to a society that has become so detached from the natural world and has become so impatient that it doesn't have time to think and try to understand anything but image to others and because of it we are in a significantly worse position than we were before.
Use following for flora:
I think One Tree Per Child gets special grants through BCC. For some stupid reason grants are easy to get as soon as the word 'tree' is mentioned but anything else like funding for a hay cut is an impossible challenge. With the new Biodiversity Net Gain rules (when a development occurs an area of land equivalent in size plus 10% must be set aside for nature whether adjacent or offset somewhere else), businesses are already forming where huge land owners are selling off strips of land to be 'rewilded' (dodgy tree planting). The idea is good but the fact is it's yet another area ready to be exploited by countless opportunists. There is no regulation. A much better way would be to say that developers must pay an additional amount the land costs plus 10% to a local conservation charity e.g. the Avon Wildlife Trust which they can then spend on conserving and buying land as they choose appropriately and actually employing people like myself to manage it properly. I hope that in the future this mass tree planting craze will be known as the biggest greenwashing scandal of the century!