It is time to stop the Forestry Commission destroying our beautiful peatlands

Telegraph

29-05-2025

At first glance, one might imagine that the primary purpose of the Forestry Commission was the preservation of our ancient and most beautiful forests. Its website and posters depict broadleaf trees and sunny, sylvan glades. Indeed, the preservation of these sumptuous places is one of its main objectives. But there is another and arguably more important one: the promotion of commercial forestry.
Much of the UK's uplands are carpeted in Sitka spruce so closely planted that it is difficult for any other form of wildlife to survive. In the Northumberland National Park vast armies of Sitka spruce, which produces low-grade timber for us as fence posts, kitchen furniture and laminate floors, march across some of our most scenic uplands.
More than 20 per cent of the national park is carpeted in commercial forestry, much of it planted in deep peat, and the park management are powerless to stop it. The vast Kielder Forest, part of which is within the park, is among the least diverse habitats in the country.
In 2011, in response to mounting criticism from conservationists, the Forestry Commission advised land managers to avoid planting in deep peat. There was, however, a large loophole. The advice applied only to new planting. Forests already planted in deep peat, as many are, would continue to be replanted, regardless of the environmental consequences.
The first big test of this new policy has occurred in Northumberland where the 852 hectare Uswayford forest, at the head of the beautiful Coquet valley, is about to be harvested.
The national park authority enjoys good relations with the local forestry management and a period of negotiation resulted in a suggested compromise that one third of the forest in the most sensitive areas would not be replanted, another third would be replanted with native broadleaf trees, and the final third would revert to commercial conifers.
However, when this proposition was put to the Commission's senior management, they rejected it outright. Instead, they insisted on 71 per cent of the site being replanted with conifers, 21 per cent with broadleaf trees, and just under eight per cent reserved for the restoration of peat.
When challenged, Forestry England replies that they have been set targets by the Government to reduce the import of timber imports, much of which comes from Scandinavia and Canada.
As it happens, national parks have targets, too. Ironically, they too are set by Defra, the very Government department which sets targets for the Forestry Commission. Landowners in the Northumberland national park are funded by the taxpayer to restore damaged peatland, and the park authority has a successful programme doing exactly that.
The Forestry Commission also deploys another argument. Namely, that conifer plantations are as effective as peat bogs at absorbing carbon dioxide. The weakness of this argument is that commercial forests are harvested every 30 or 40 years and turned into products which have a limited shelf life, whereas peat continues to absorb carbon indefinitely.
It is also worth bearing in mind that, once peat has been replanted three times, it is beyond salvation. The case for restoring the Uswayford deep peat is that, thus far, it has only been replanted once; It could still be saved.
Ultimately Defra ministers need to decide on priorities. If they are interested in preserving ancient peat and the carbon locked inside it, they need to stop the Forestry Commission from destroying them.
A good place to start would be in the national parks. Happily, there is an obvious solution at hand. At the moment, although most national parks have responsibility for planning and development, forestry is exempted.
Perhaps the time has come for the planning powers of the national parks to be extended to cover forestry, rather than allowing the Forestry Commission to be its own judge and jury.