It is time to stop the Forestry Commission destroying our beautiful peatlands
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.
Chris Mullin is a former Environment minister and a member of the Northumberland National Park Authority. He is writing in a personal capacity
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The case a federal judge called 'Kafkaesque'
Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. Have you ever had a word stuck in your head? I can't seem to shake this one from a court decision this week: entombed. The haunting term came from the chief federal trial judge in Washington, D.C., James Boasberg. He's presiding over a lawsuit from scores of Venezuelan immigrants held in a Salvadoran prison known for human rights abuses, called the Center for Terrorism Confinement, or CECOT for short. The judge wrote a 69-page opinion, published Wednesday, explaining why the Trump administration must work to let the immigrants challenge their rushed renditions to that prison back in March. Boasberg opened with a nod to Franz Kafka's 'The Trial.' The Obama appointee compared the ordeal to that of Kafka's protagonist, Josef K., whose absurd legal saga is a helpful shorthand to draw attention to farcical affairs. While the term Kafkaesque can seem dramatic, it applies here. After all, U.S. agents hustled the men out of the country without due process, backed by the purported authority of an 18th-century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, whose factual and legal propriety has been called into grave doubt not only by judges around the country but by U.S. intelligence agencies. On the latter front, a declassified memo released last month showed that officials had rejected President Donald Trump's basis for citing the act. He had claimed the Venezuelan government controlled the gang to which these men allegedly belonged. But experts in Trump's own government disagreed. So, Trump's use of the law was bogus from the start. On top of that, at a hurried hearing in March, Boasberg had ordered the U.S. to keep custody of the men — an order the government ignored, and that disobedience is the subject of separate contempt litigation that the administration is appealing. But that foundational sham and defiance wasn't the issue in Boasberg's ruling this week. His narrower, modest point was that the men never got due process to challenge their removals under the act. 'Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, [government] Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members,' the judge wrote, adding: 'But — and this is the critical point — there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government's say-so.' Our word-of-the-week then emerged when the jurist observed that 'significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.' Entombed in CECOT. Now what? Boasberg said the government must facilitate the plaintiffs' ability to challenge their removals. But he left it to the government to decide how to make that happen. 'Exactly what such facilitation must entail will be determined in future proceedings,' the judge wrote, giving the administration a week to come up with a plan. We'll be eagerly awaiting the official response — or, the latest emergency Supreme Court appeal from a judge's effort to bring the administration into legal compliance. At any rate, it doesn't seem like anyone is going anywhere anytime soon, even if Boasberg's order stays on track, which is not a sure bet. Until then: entombed. Have any questions or comments for me? Please submit them on this form for a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal blog and newsletter. This article was originally published on
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Tesla Shares Caught in the Middle of Musk-Trump Bromance Breakup
When President Donald Trump won the election in November, investors viewed Tesla Inc. as one of the biggest winners. That bet now seems to be on shaky ground after investors watched the once formidable alliance dissolve in real time. Simmering tensions over Trump's signature tax-and-spending bill erupted into a public war of words on Thursday, with Trump mulling an end government contracts and subsidies for Tesla and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Musk said he would decommission a SpaceX aircraft used by the US, only to walk back his threat later in the day.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers
Who owns the news? Much of the Left has been obsessed with the issue for over a century. They have long railed against press barons and their supposed bias. So it is perhaps surprising that this Labour Government is taking such a lackadaisical approach to foreign states having substantial holdings in British newspapers. The last Conservative government back in December 2023 intervened to put on hold and scrutinise the proposed sale of The Telegraph to a company backed by Sheikh Mansour, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. Columnists, including Charles Moore, The Telegraph's former editor, rightly argued that even if there was no actual interference in the newspaper's editorial line, there would be the perception that the paper would no longer be independent. This would fatally undermine the newspaper's standing by throwing away its reputation for fearless reporting, whatever the reality of the situation. The then government listened and last year, in the Digital, Media and Competitions Act, introduced a new regulatory regime to restrict foreign state ownership of newspapers and news magazines. But this Act only set out the broad principle, not the details of how it would be implemented. A total ban would come with its own problems. There would be little risk of editorial interference if, say, the sovereign wealth fund of Norway was a passive investor owning 3pc or 4pc in a UK-listed media company. During the consultations, it was proposed that a 5pc limit may be appropriate to allow for such holdings. Last month the new Government announced that the threshold would not be 5pc, but actually 15pc. I and many of my colleagues in the House of Lords have serious misgivings about this much higher limit, but it is one we can live with. However, there is another aspect of the draft regulations which is unacceptable. The 15pc threshold is not cumulative, it applies to each individual holding. This means that there would be nothing to stop multiple states each owning 15pc of a newspaper. It has been reported that after The Telegraph's proposed takeover by RedBird Capital, Sheikh Mansour intends to retain up to a 15pc stake in the newspaper. With the current proposals there would be nothing to stop, say, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain from each taking 15pc holdings. A cumulative 60pc of a British newspaper owned by foreign states is a very different proposition. The guarantees against foreign control would have evaporated. Has this potential scenario arisen as a result of an oversight by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary? Alongside 50 of my fellow peers, I have written to Ms Nandy asking for clarification. Signatories include former chancellor Lord Lamont, former trade secretary Lord Lilley, long-time chairman of the 1922 committee Lord Brady, ex-director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald and the current chairman of Ipso, the independent press regulator, Lord Faulks. Our fears could be easily assuaged by simply amending the proposed regulations to ensure that 15pc is a cap on total foreign ownership. If the move is deliberate, it raises serious questions about this Government's commitment to a free press. The statutory instrument implementing the Government's regulations has now been laid and will shortly come before both Houses of Parliament. If the proposals reach the Lords in their current form, I and many of my colleagues will not be able to support the measure. The Telegraph's ownership has been left in limbo for two years so far. It is time for the new regulatory framework to be put in place that will allow its smooth transfer to new owners. But this must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press. The issues are much wider than the future of just one newspaper. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
