New forest to be planted to help hit Government's net zero goals
A new forest will be planted on swathes of farmland from the Cotswolds to the Mendips to help hit the Government's net zero goals.
The Western Forest will include 20 million trees on farmland and in cities including Bristol and Swindon by 2050 to try and balance out greenhouse gas emissions.
Nearly three-quarters (73 per cent) of the land for new trees will be agricultural and farmers and landowners will be paid to plant trees from taxpayer funds, with other funding from private investment and cash from housing developers.
The Government has fallen behind on ambitious and legally binding targets to increase tree cover across England from 14.5 per cent to 16.5 per cent by 2050.
The £7.5 million scheme to create 2,500 hectares of new woodland between Gloucester and Salisbury, the first new national forest in 30 years, will pay farmers significant sums to plant new trees.
However, there are concerns that the push for new woodland will displace food production and less productive agriculture, such as tenanted sheep farming.
'We will enhance landscapes for all to enjoy'
Commenting on the announcement of the new national forest, George Dunn of the Tenant Farmers Association, said: 'This is a Government which appears to be keen to look at removing land from agriculture, rather than doing what it said it would do in making food security, national security.
'We have seen very little from this Government about how it intends to build the resilience, the capacity and the profitability of the sector.'
A recent policy document from the environment department suggested some 10 per cent of farmland would need to be taken out of food production to meet net zero and nature targets.
Defra said the scheme would not allow woodland to be created on the most productive agricultural land and would encourage farmers to integrate forestry into their food production.
'This is about resource, funding and expertise coming directly to landowners, partners and communities, planting millions of trees in the right places,' said Alex Stone, the chief executive of Forest of Avon, England's Community Forests.
'Together, we will enhance landscapes for all to enjoy, improving the lives of our 2.5 million residents and visitors to the region.'
The Western Forest, the first of three pledged by the Labour Government before the election, will not be a single continuous woodland but will increase coverage of trees in five priority areas.
These include land between Chippenham and Warminster and between Bristol and Gloucester.
Under the existing England Woodland Creation Offer, farmers could receive almost £23,000 per hectare of new tree planting. That compares to £20 per hectare for fields in the most basic green farming payments scheme, which was paused by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs last week.
It comes after the Government announced the release of wild beavers in England and a comprehensive ban on neonicotinoid pesticides used on sugar beet crops.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Spending war of words will only heat up as Holyrood election looms
The battle lines have been well and truly drawn ahead of 2026 Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It didn't take long for the traditional war of words to kick off between ministers north and south of the Border. The Chancellor's spending review was a blizzard of big numbers. Rachel Reeves said it would deliver an average block grant for Scotland of £50.9 billion per year over the next three years. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is the largest settlement in real terms since devolution was introduced, she said. UK ministers said it amounted to an extra £9.1 billion for the Scottish Government over the review period. Chancellor Rachel Reeves | PA 'That's more money than ever before for them to invest in Scottish public services like our NHS, police, housing and schools,' said Scottish Secretary Ian Murray. Keen Holyrood watchers will not be surprised to hear that Shona Robison, the SNP's Finance Secretary, took a different view. She insisted Scotland was yet again being treated 'as an afterthought'. 'Today's settlement for Scotland is particularly disappointing, with real terms growth of 0.8 per cent a year for our overall block grant, which is lower than the average for UK departments,' she said. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Had our resource funding for day-to-day priorities grown in line with the UK Government's overall spending, we would have £1.1 billion more to spend on our priorities over the next three years. 'In effect, Scotland has been short-changed by more than a billion pounds.' Analysis by experts such as those at the Fraser Of Allander Institute (FAI), attached to Strathclyde University, helps cut through some of the noise. The wider UK picture, it said, is one of 'largesse in the short-run' followed by cuts in future years. On the day-to-day spending side, the Scottish Government's funding does indeed grow at an average of 0.8 per cent a year after accounting for inflation. This is lower than forecast by the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission last month. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'We have seen some Labour MPs and MSPs describing this event as increasing the block grant by £9.1 billion over the spending review period,' experts at the FAI wrote in a blog post. 'While it is true that Barnett consequentials add up to this figure (across different periods for resource and capital), this doesn't seem like a particularly transparent or helpful way of describing the changes. 'It essentially assumes that no additional funding would have been made available for the Scottish Government in cash terms relative to that in 2025/26 – which is not a credible baseline. 'A much more insightful – though perhaps less cheery – conclusion from looking at the SFC's forecast is that by 2028/29, funding will be £0.7 billion lower than their central estimate published on 29 May.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad David Phillips, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the increase in the Scottish Government's day-to-day funding was frontloaded, at 1.2 per cent in 2026/27, then 0.6 per cent and 0.7 per cent in subsequent years. 'With devolved elections looming, this poses a risk: it will be easier to fund any pledges/giveaways around the time of the election than later years,' he wrote on social media. 'Parties need to avoid the temptation to promise unfunded 'goodies'; their pledges will need to be carefully scrutinised. 'While the Scottish Government's budget will increase overall, the NHS could easily absorb all of the increase - necessitating cuts to other spending. 'That's particularly likely from 2027/28 onwards, due to combo of smaller increases in UK funding and devolved tax and benefit forecasts. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'It's perfectly legitimate for the Scottish Government to prioritise benefits and public sector pay rises - but without further tax rises that will squeeze many services even more than in the rest of the UK.' Of course, there were other big announcements for Scotland in the spending review, not least money for a long-awaited carbon capture project in Aberdeenshire. The Acorn facility, which had previously been overlooked in favour of schemes down south, is in line for 'development funding' from the UK Government, although it is not clear how much money is actually on the table. Ms Robison said the Scottish Government had been provided with no figures and no timeframe. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Elsewhere, the Chancellor confirmed up to £750 million in funding for the creation of a supercomputer at Edinburgh University, which could be one of the most powerful in the world. The plan had previously been scrapped by Ms Reeves in the early weeks of her Government taking office. There was also an initial investment of £250 million over the next three years in the Faslane naval base, the home of the UK's nuclear deterrent, while Glasgow will benefit from wider munitions funding. Increased cash for the NHS and housing in England will see more money flow north to Scotland, and SNP ministers will be under pressure to pass this on. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "What we have done previously is we have passed on health resource consequentials and [then] some, going back years and years,' Ms Robison told journalists in Holyrood. "We haven't just matched health resource consequentials, but we've given more than that. So that has been our pattern of investment in the health service previously." But as the Holyrood election looms next year, it is clear the war of words over spending - and who is to blame for the state of public services - will only heat up. In a briefing for Scottish journalists, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones said the spending review will mean £2.9 billion extra for Scotland each year.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves seized her moment – whatever the future brings, Labour's economic course is now set
The consensus has long been that the 2025 spending review would be a defining moment for Keir Starmer's government. For once, the consensus proved spot-on. The government's main priorities were set out on Wednesday in a blizzard of Commons announcements from Rachel Reeves, some economically substantive, others more for show. The upshot is that the shape of the British state, as Labour intends it, is now decided until the eve of the next election. There are further crossroads still to come, some of them major, as the years covered by the review unroll. Taxes are likely to rise, probably as soon as the autumn budget, to pay for Reeves's big ticket boosts on Wednesday for defence, health and housing. Council tax could rise too, with possibly dramatic results. The review's emphasis on capital spending means current spending could be squeezed again, perhaps heralding pay battles. Nevertheless, Labour has set its course. The administrative purpose of the spending review is to define where money is spent in the British state. But the review is also a defining political and cultural moment. It sets out the choices by which the government will stand or fall, and which aim to locate an electoral sweet spot. That spot, still elusive and distant despite Labour's Holyrood byelection win last week, is one in which, as Reeves put it, a sense of renewal 'is felt in people's everyday lives'. Politically, this speech was a moment of truth for the chancellor herself. Reeves has had a tough first year. Some of the grind she will have expected, some of it not. The year has been dominated by the winter fuel allowance blunder, which was not hers alone but which she inevitably owns. She has maintained a dogged commitment to her strict fiscal rules – she repeated it in Wednesday's speech – in spite of new global shocks that might allow her to adapt them. Lacklustre macroeconomic out-turns have not helped; inflation and unemployment have both ticked up. Last summer's donations row and questions about the truthfulness of her personal CV have done her no favours either. The bookies were starting to mark down the Cabinet Office minister, Pat McFadden, as a potential successor before Reeves spoke. But Reeves did more than enough in her speech to put the lid on that, at least for now. The muttering against her lacks momentum, since it comes from the usual backbench and union critics. Cabinet support, not least from Starmer himself, is meanwhile described as rock solid. 'She is universally popular and respected for being straight,' a minister says. If Starmer removed her he would find himself in trouble too. Even so, when Reeves addressed MPs on Wednesday she had something to prove. If her career was not on the line, her authority was. A well-connected former Whitehall mandarin put it very clearly to me a couple of days ago. 'It really is a pivotal time for her,' he said. 'It has been a really difficult first year. The inheritance was genuinely bad. But the response has blunted her reputation and her options. The main problem is that the government has still not successfully made clear what kind of Britain it is trying to create. If she is to make that vision clear, then this is the time she absolutely needs to do it.' To understand Reeves, it is important to go back to her record as shadow chancellor. Much of her approach was set out in two speeches. The first, given in Washington DC in May 2023, launched the idea of 'securonomics', which she echoed on Wednesday. The Washington speech was the historically bolder of the two. It amounted to an obituary for the era of borderless economic globalisation. It placed national economic security, both for the country and for the public, at the centre of strategy. The second, Reeves's Mais lecture in March 2024, filled this out more watchfully, because the election was nearing. It emphasised the active role of the state in curbing economic decline and inequality, and emphasising the centrality of growth. The connection between those speeches and the announcements this week is clearly umbilical. The spending review's main focus – defence, health and levelling up – is rooted in the securonomics approach. Reeves may be one of Labour's most pragmatic ministers. But this absolutely does not mean that she is merely a technocrat without priorities. Indeed she has described herself, in my hearing, as a social democrat. I am reasonably certain she still would. Her record and her priorities bear it out. So did Wednesday's speech. Her reform of Treasury policy towards growth outside London is a striking example. Few in the cabinet have such a visceral commitment to social and economic mobility. For her, as she made clear on Wednesday, this is personal. Nevertheless, some of what Reeves said in opposition is simply no longer valid. In particular, the assumption in both speeches that the US shares Britain's values and is a partner for stability has been comprehensively trashed by Donald Trump. Nor, despite the fact that they were given after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, do Reeves's speeches from opposition contain any hint of the much higher priority now earmarked for defence spending. True, Reeves is not a chancellor who panders to the parts of the Labour coalition whose priorities are unchanged since the middle of the last century. But, as the railways and energy already show, she is open to different ownership models. She was quick to settle with the unions on pay last summer. And she absolutely does not believe, as Liz Truss did, that the key is for government to get out of the way. Ever since she became chancellor, many have been uncertain about whether Reeves can pitch a vision strongly enough to connect with the wider public. She allowed herself to be dubbed an iron chancellor, but she then got involved in the donations furore. Why does she insist on such a tight policy at the Treasury, some ask? The answer is either that she and Starmer think they have no alternative in the circumstances; or, it's that they are doing it this way because they actually believe in it. Yesterday's Commons speech was clearly an attempt to show that it is the former not the latter, and given fewer constraints the outlook might be very different. Reeves said repeatedly that her choices were 'Labour choices'. So often was this claim made that it all became a bit insistent, but the purpose was clear. It was to stake out distinct centre-left ideological ground for tackling the hazards of the 2020s. Though some will dispute it, it is the thread that runs through the whole of Reeves's career. The test now is whether that essentially social democratic approach of growing the economy and then redistributing the proceeds will work in today's world, especially given the entrenched imbalances of the British economy and the increasing volatility of British politics. Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trump secretary sets the record straight after being 'body-checked' by Elon Musk
Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent faced an unusual line of questioning on Wednesday when he testified on Capitol Hill. During a hearing on his department's budget before the Ways and Means Committee, Bessent was grilled about whether he really tackled Elon Musk in the White House last month. 'Mr. Secretary, how are you doing?' Representative Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) said innocuously. 'So far, so good,' Bessent quipped back. 'Okay. I was just curious because I know Elon Musk body checked you at the White House. No animosity to Elon Musk, right?' Gomez continued. 'You know that?' Bessent asked about the sparring event. 'That's what I heard,' Gomez responded. Bessent had been partaking in three days of trade negotiations in London and had not yet been questioned about the story. 'So you believe, you believe what you read on Breitbart is what you are telling us, Congressman,' Bessent pressed. 'I didn't know ... If it's too sensitive for you I won't ask that question, but let me move' Gomez flubbed. 'I will take South Carolina over South Africa any day', Bessent replied, referring to his home state versus Musk's nation of birth. Musk was spotted with a black eye as he delivered a sort of farewell address in the Oval Office upon departing from his role as a 'special government employee' heading up Trump's Department of Government Efficiency DOGE). At the time, Musk claimed that the black eye was the result of roughhousing with his young son, X í¿ A-12, who is more commonly know as X. But speculation grew as more was revealed about his tense standoff with Bessent. Former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon told in May that Musk's turbulent time in the White House was marred when he was confronted over wild promises to save the administration 'a trillion dollars'. That's when an irate Musk physically 'shoved' 62-year-old Bessent. 'Scott Bessent called him out and said, "You promised us a trillion dollars (in cuts), and now you're at like $100 billion, and nobody can find anything, what are you doing?"' Bannon revealed. And that's when Elon got physical. It's a sore subject with him. 'It wasn't an argument, it was a physical confrontation. Elon basically shoved him.' Bannon said the physical altercation came as the two billionaires moved from the Oval Office to outside Chief of Staff Susie Wiles' office, and then outside the office of the then National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz.
