Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to
balance (1) carbon sequestration, and (2) biodiversity, in their
plans to plant 30,000 hectares of trees annually.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
() (Con) [V]
My Lords, trees are an essential part of our nation’s
biodiversity, and existing native woodlands are recognised as
priority habitats. Tree planting is a nature-based solution that
can expand habitats and help to address the twin challenges of
climate change and biodiversity loss. Through our £640 million
nature for climate fund, we will ensure that trees are grown,
selected, planted and managed appropriately to provide multiple
benefits for the climate, nature, people and the economy in
supporting a green recovery.
(Lab) [V]
While the Government’s plans to increase tree planting are
laudable, they must not be at the expense of destroying
peatlands, which capture much more carbon than my beloved trees.
More carbon is stored in our peatlands than in all the forests of
France, Germany and the UK put together. Can the Minister give me
an assurance that the Forestry Commission will neither be forced
by government targets to plant upland peat bogs, which are our
national equivalent of rainforests in terms of carbon capture,
nor have to grant-aid private landowners to do so?
(Con) [V]
I can absolutely provide the noble Lord with that assurance. In
recognition of the importance of peatlands, we are aligning our
various strategies, including the England tree strategy and the
peat strategy, and we hope that, combined, they will set out a
long-term approach to fulfilling our international biodiversity
commitments and 25-year environment plan, in addition to
restoring and protecting our peatland and expanding tree cover.
It is essential that we plant trees in the right place. Deep
peatlands are absolutely not the right place for tree planting,
and we recognise that.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my non-financial interests in the
Northumberland National Park as listed in the register. There we
have seen the massively increased planting of Sitka spruce, aided
by subsidies, to the detriment of biodiversity. In view of what
the Minister said about priority habitats a minute ago, will the
Forestry Commission and others be required to follow the 10
golden rules of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew and not plant
the wrong trees in the wrong places?
(Con) [V]
I can also provide the noble Baroness with the reassurance that
she is looking for. Given that we will use public money to
deliver much of the plan for trees that we have and that was in
our manifesto, we want to achieve the biggest possible return for
taxpayers. That means using those funds and the wider programme
to deliver for biodiversity, people and climate change. Our
strong default position will be for mixed native woodlands and,
in some cases, facilitating the natural regeneration of land in
the right places.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, President Biden has launched the Civilian Climate
Corps, echoing Roosevelt’s programme after the economic slump of
the great depression, which created thousands of public jobs,
transformed the US natural infrastructure and planted 3 billion
trees. Will the Government introduce a national nature service to
tackle carbon, build biodiversity and create green jobs?
(Con) [V]
I cannot make the guarantee that the noble Baroness asks for, but
the Government’s combined intention to tackle the appalling
biodiversity loss of the last few decades and to reverse the tree
loss we have seen over a longer period will set us on track to
turn the trajectory of decline around in the quickest possible
time, as we committed to in our 25-year environment plan. The
Prime Minister announced just a few months ago that we are
committed to signing up alongside other countries to protect 30%
of our land and 30% of our oceans by 2030—the end of this
decade—and the funds have been set aside to enable us to do so.
(Con)
My Lords, to plan to plant 30,000 hectares of trees annually is a
massive task. Where will the land come from? Will it include
moorland? Is my noble friend aware that many years ago, when tax
advantages were open to tree planting, the Cabrach hills at the
source of the River Deveron in Banffshire were planted
incorrectly? The damage to the river system was severe and
lasting. Who will advise Her Majesty’s Government on good
practice?
(Con) [V]
My noble friend makes a really important point. It is a huge
task, and we need to get it right. There have been many mistakes
over recent decades, including the example he just cited. We need
all new tree planting and natural regeneration to be done
appropriately and in a way that maximises all the multiple
benefits of trees and woodlands and avoids the mistakes of the
past. The Forestry Commission, Natural England and the
Environment Agency work collectively to advise both government
generally and landowners specifically on individual planting
proposals which align with regulatory best practice.
(CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. This
essential balance can be achieved only if the growers of these
trees in less-afforested areas achieve a commercial return.
However, that return will be dependent on producing carbon units
at points in the future, and that is not guaranteed when factors
largely outside of grower control, such as squirrel and deer
damage, drought, disease and soil deficiency, could affect the
trees and thereby carbon sequestration. Why would a grower take
this gamble?
(Con) [V]
The financial incentives we will put forward as part of our
England tree strategy are designed to ensure that it is in the
economic interests of landowners big and small to join us in this
huge national endeavour to plant 30,000 hectares of trees per
year by 2025. But the noble Lord raises the problem of invasive
species, citing grey squirrels, and he is right. The Government
are committed to doing all we can to tackle this issue. We
continue to fund research into the best possible mechanisms for
tackling grey squirrels and other species, such as muntjacs, and
it remains a priority issue for Defra.
(Lab) [V]
Huge numbers of larch have been felled in recent years in the
Lake District National Park to try to contain deadly fungal
disease. What plans do the Government have to support the
planting and, importantly, maintenance of native species to
replace these lost trees, improve biodiversity in the park and
preserve and create habitats where red squirrels can thrive?
(Con) [V]
As I have said, the default position and the Government’s
priority when it comes to deploying the funds put aside for this
programme will be in favour of mixed woodlands—either planted or
as a result of natural colonisation—in the appropriate areas. We
want that diversity back. In the case of some of these appalling
tree diseases which threaten iconic species—ash dieback, for
instance—we have specific programmes. We know that a large number
of ash trees will become infected, but not all of them will die.
We expect that 1% to 5% will show tolerance, so we are funding
research into future breeding programmes of tolerant trees. We
are conducting, I believe, the world’s largest screening trials
and will plant the first of the tolerant trees later this year.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, a young plantation is an emitter of CO2 for the first
few years so will not help in achieving a short-term target. How
long does the Minister think it will take for net carbon
reduction to occur?
(Con) [V]
The noble Lord is right that the value of trees to carbon
sequestration does not begin immediately. It can take up to seven
years, depending on the tree variety and the quality of the land.
But our commitment to planting at least 30,000 hectares a year,
or allowing the natural regeneration of up to 30,000 hectares a
year, across the UK by 2025 is based on advice from the committee
on climate change, which recommended that figure as a minimum to
help us to reach our net-zero emissions target by 2050.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Woodland Trust has just cancelled an order for
22,000 trees from mainland GB for Northern Ireland, and it
specifically said that it is because of the ban on British soil
coming from GB to Northern Ireland—I repeat, the ban on British
soil going from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Does
the Minister understand just how devastating the protocol will be
on the biodiversity of Northern Ireland woodlands?
(Con) [V]
The situation described by the noble Baroness makes no sense
whatever, and she makes the point very clearly and powerfully. I
will take her comments away and convey them to colleagues in my
department and across government to see what—if anything—can be
done to restore common sense to the situation that she describes.
