FORESTRY bosses have rejected claims they refused to engage with an inquiry into the future of the sector in Scotland. 

Academics at the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) last week concluded that commercial coniferous plantations should lose access to public money north of the border, arguing the tens of millions of pounds in subsidies given to the timber industry should instead be spent on "longer-living native forests". 

A report – the result of a probe launched in October 2022 – said the Scottish and UK governments are wrong to claim that public subsidies are needed to help plant more, larger conifer forests. 

WANT MORE ON THE RSE REPORT? 

In the wake of the document's publication, Scottish Forestry officials hit back at its authors, saying the government agency was not involved in its creation, despite offering to contribute. SF also reiterated its support for conifer and broadleaf planting. 

That row took another twist when the RSE claimed it had "targeted" SF during the consultation process, but the agency "did not follow up on opportunities to discuss the preparation of the report". 

Forestry Journal: Jon Lambert was among the forestry figures to criticise the report, saying he was 'appalled' by its findings Jon Lambert was among the forestry figures to criticise the report, saying he was 'appalled' by its findings (Image: Supplied)

Responding to those claims, a SF spokesperson said it "would be inappropriate for [SF] to respond to a public consultation which is exploring changes to current government policy". 

The spokesperson said: “The report produced by RSE covers a very wide range of forestry themes and we welcome the acknowledgement that as a nation we need to get more trees in the ground to help climate change and address nature loss.

“We were notified of the Inquiry starting, however, being the Scottish Government agency responsible for forestry policy, it would be inappropriate for us to respond to a public consultation which is exploring changes to current government policy. This is why we offered technical assistance so that the latest information of forestry policy, research and guidance could be made available, but this was not taken up.

“We exchanged some technical data but due to the breadth and scope of the Inquiry, we would have envisaged meaningful engagement across the board, and with nature and content of the report we would have also expected some form of dialogue in advance of its publication.

“Once we have had time to fully digest the report, we will consider how we follow up with RSE.”

The report was aided by evidence from 45 public responses, both from individuals and organisations such as Confor. It found: 

  • In Scotland, ministers have subsidised forestry by more than £390 million over the last decade, with roughly 80 per cent of that spent on commercial conifer plantations, as well as extra subsidies for haulage.
  • Timber companies and landowners pay no corporation tax on their income from forests; profits from timber sales are tax-free; there is no capital gains tax on the value of the trees, and 100 per cent inheritance tax relief on the forestry property.
  • Forest owners were also able to sell carbon credits, adding to the attractiveness of forestry as an investment.
  • These grants, tax breaks and carbon credits had helped to substantially drive up land prices in Scotland, up by 73 per cent in a single year, greatly distorting the land market and pricing people out.
  • Government agencies are not properly enforcing policies which require environmental impact assessments on new forest projects; their approach is “inadequate” and “passive”.

However, forestry figures have united to condemn the report, with Confor saying in a statement: "Simply relying on ever-increasing imports and exporting our environmental footprint is the logical outcome of the RSE’s report." Others, such as Andy Wightman, have said it is time forestry had a proper debate about public funding and tax breaks. 

A Royal Society of Edinburgh spokesperson said: “The inquiry into public financial support for tree planting in Scotland began with an open, public consultation in October 2022.

Forestry Journal: Former Green MSP Andy Wightman said it was time forestry discussed its public funding Former Green MSP Andy Wightman said it was time forestry discussed its public funding (Image: PA)

“The public consultation ran for a period of six weeks. Scottish Forestry was in addition part of a list of targeted approaches to relevant organisations and individuals who were specifically asked for responses at the outset. Despite this, Scottish Forestry did not send any response to the consultation.

“In addition, Scottish Forestry was directly approached by the RSE during the report’s compilation but did not follow up on opportunities to discuss the preparation of the report.

“Finally, it is disappointing that Scottish Forestry did not see that the report recognises the difficult position they are in with the requirements to both maximise the number of trees planted and to ensure such planting does not harm the environment. That is why the report recommended that the Scottish Government fund additional staff so that they can fully play the role they need to do for wellbeing of Scotland.”