Tree planting: What's the reality for nurseries amid woes?

ONE of the many strengths of Forestry Journal is its extensive news coverage which barely misses a trick on new tree planting and new woodland creation. However, for peace of mind any news presented by government departments and NGOs should be read, taken at face value and then put aside, otherwise you may end up tearing your hair out trying to square the propaganda with what is actually happening on the ground. 

A classic case is the numbers game played out for tree planting, which I recently discussed with a colleague in the forest nursery business. David Gwillam still runs one of England’s few remaining forest nurseries, at Prees Heath near Whitchurch in Shropshire, after 50 years of sterling service to the sector. 

READ MORE: UK's tree-planting rates fall to lowest levels in five years

According to David, government promises to plant thousands of trees conjure up visions of new woodland as far as the eye can see. Not for those of us who know it requires a couple of thousand trees to plant just one hectare, but for those who don’t know any better (i.e. the general public, prime target for the propaganda). 

A promise to plant 50,000 trees gets Joe Public salivating, but with planting rates for conifers and broadleaves at around 2,000 and 1,600 trees per hectare respectively, that’s still a tiny area. Tree planting talk needs to be in the millions, says David. As the one who buys and sows the seed, manages the seed beds and sells the tree seedlings, but also burns them in their tens of thousands when demand fails to match government rhetoric, he should know.

I read a press release from the Woodland Trust, published in the May 2023 issue of Forestry Journal, which claimed ‘England’s largest native woodland’ was to be created at Snaizeholme, a barren tree-bare valley covering 561 hectares in the Yorkshire Dales.

Planting British native tree species, including alder, birch, willow, aspen, rowan, hawthorn and blackthorn, will provide a boost for biodiversity, but will also provide much-needed woodland cover in the Yorkshire Dales where tree cover is only five per cent of total land area and ancient woodland stands at just one per cent, says the Woodland Trust.

Snaizeholme (Image: James Reader / Front Row Films)

So far so good, but then the ground gets a bit boggy because according to the Woodland Trust they are going to create England’s biggest native woodland with just 100,000 trees.

“Blimey,” said my mate Darren, downing a pint at the Dog and Duck. “That’s a lot of trees!” And, of course, to Darren and the general public it is. Not to be sneezed at, or as they say in my neck of the woods “better than a stab in the eye with a sharp stick”, although at a planting density of 1,600 trees/ha that’s just 62.5 ha of new woodland. 

How big will this woodland have to be to take over the number-one spot in England? One of my local woodlands in Hertfordshire is Northaw Great Wood, which weighs in at around 220 ha, while Ruislip Woods in North West London comes in at 300 ha. However, these are completely dwarfed by the 1,455 ha constituting the Wyre Forest Nature Reserve in Lancashire, which Gov.uk says is the largest native woodland in England. 

How can Snaizeholme become the largest native woodland in England even if the entire 561 ha is planted up? Clearly some would be left unplanted as rides and pathways, but I am still trying to work out how 100,000 seedling trees can create around 500 ha of new woodland.

READ MORE: England’s largest native woodland set to be created

However, the Woodland Trust says trees will be planted at random and without plastic guards, to help spur natural forest growth, so perhaps I have got the wrong end of the ‘sharp stick’. Perhaps they are up for agroforestry and plan to establish what was traditionally called wood pasture. With 500 ha translating into five million square metres, the 100,000 trees could be conveniently placed at one tree every 50 square metres, thus leaving plenty of room around the trees for grazing goats. 

But the plot thickened when the Woodland Trust went on to imply that 100,000 trees is more than will be needed because they don’t expect all planted trees will survive in the windswept, rainy upland valley, presumably meaning an even sparser than sparse tree cover. Now I don’t want to spoil the planting party, but they might lose even more by failing to furnish the newly planted trees with combined tree guard and tree shelter facilities.

And there was another news item which didn’t quite square with my understanding of the forestry nursery business. A story about a £5 m boost to the Forestry Commission’s Tree Production Capital Grant, with the aim of driving the production of tree seed and seedlings through developments in machinery, automation and the expansion of facilities.

England is falling well short of its efforts to plant 7,000 ha per year and the Tree Production Capital Grant will support efforts to build nursery capacity and grow long-term tree seed and sapling supply, says the Forestry Commission. 

We all know England’s tree-planting programme is an abysmal failure, but are the bottlenecks caused by insufficient supplies of seedling and sapling trees? The fact that forest nurseries are continually forced to lift and torch hundreds of thousands of trees, including mainstream species, for which there are no buyers (and no compensation from government) would suggest not. This is something which has been happening for years.

I have known David Gwillam since 2010 and I know for a fact he has been forced to burn hundreds of thousands of trees. I recall seeing huge fields of common ash trees lifted and destined for the bonfire following the chalara ash dieback debacle in 2012. The FC promptly urged landowners and foresters to plant sweet chestnut instead.

Following the Forestry Commission’s call for foresters to plant sweet chestnut in lieu of Chalara-stricken common ash, David Gwillam obliged by seeding much more sweet chestnut than usual. David was left with over-grown trees that were eventually piled onto the bonfire. (Image: FJ)

David obliged by planting a whole load of extra sweet chestnut seed, but was forced to torch a significant proportion of the subsequently over-grown sweet chestnut saplings because the industry had apparently scorned the FC’s new planting recommendations. He has even been forced to destroy thousands of native oak due to mixed messaging from the various forest authorities with respect to species (Quercus robur or Quercus petraea) as well as seed provenance. Indeed, I recall the time his local MP on a visit the nursery was horrified to learn David had been forced to torch 50,000 oak trees that year alone.

Forestry Minister, Trudy Harrison, said: “This government is committed to bolstering domestic tree production and fostering a robust forestry industry – actions that are necessary to realise our long-term tree-planting goals.”

Trudy Harrison (Image: Stock image)

Might I suggest the minister visits a forest nursery next time they are piling thousands of seedling and sapling trees onto the bonfire? And take along some burgers and sausages because burning 25,000 oak trees in one go generates a good amount of heat – and we don’t want to waste that, do we?