Patrick Roper
Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:40:47 -0800
Are you the Richard Newman who is National Trust Warden at Scotney Castle? If so, congratulations on the good work you and your organisation does there and elsewhere in Sussex. There seems to me to be a dichotomy developing between the need to sequestrate carbon and the frequently expressed importance of conserving and, where possible, enhancing biodiversity. Unfortunately both are seen as environmentally virtuous though they are often not complimentary despite many words being expended on making them seem so. Before our own species arrived here virtually nothing would have been taken out of woodlands: timber would have lain where it fell and comprised a vast resource for flora and fauna with beneficial repercussions all the way up the food chain. Centuries of exploitation of woods by people has, obviously, radically altered their biological profile and matters have become worse through fragmentation and the general degradation, through modern agriculture and urban development, of the spaces between the woods. As moves to do something about this are starting to gather momentum, the points have been switched and the environmental train has gone trundling off down the carbon capture line. At least it seems as though this is what may be happening. Coppicing has a mixed reception so far as biodiversity is concerned and it would take many words to describe the ins and outs of the argument. I think that where there are very large coppice areas that can carry stools in all stages from newly cut to just ready to cut with adequate rides and so forth in between, places like Blean Woods and West Dean Woods, there is some chance that flagship species will continue to flourish (and some chance that they will not). Coppicing small areas will not, I fear, have the same effect and will often be detrimental to wildlife. Increasing woodland cover in Britain, as the Forestry Commission are proposing will, of course, need land that currently is not woodland. Given the present global situation it seems likely that every inch of our agricultural land will be needed to grow food. That leaves places that are suboptimal for agriculture as candidates for forestry: heathlands, commons, hills and mountains. The Forestry Commission have, of course, been very successful in covering these in conifers in the past. As Sir David Read, author of the recent FC commissioned report said "From the 1950's - 70's around 25,000 hectares of woodland was planted each year, but this has declined massively in recent years: we are now harvesting the trees planted during these decades and, as this occurs and forests aren't replaced, the sequestration of carbon by trees in the UK will fall." What is happening on the spaces vacated by these former forests I wonder. You may well be right, Richard, about the sustainable supply of wood available from the whole of Kent and East Sussex, but this will mean and emphasis on woodland as an essential economic resource with biodiversity as a minor by product. In the end, I suppose, the survival of our species will come before the welfare and survival of other species when it is simply seen as a kind of altruism, a good in its own right whether the species concerned have any direct beneficial effect on the populace or not. I find it depressing to see the hypocrisy and obfuscation (often under the heading of 'scientific evidence') that so often goes into trying to say that unfettered commercial exploitation will somehow benefit biodiversity. Patrick Roper From: adastra-boun...@lists.sxbrc.org.uk [mailto:adastra-boun...@lists.sxbrc.org.uk] On Behalf Of Richard Newman Sent: 27 November 2009 10:00 To: adastra@lists.sxbrc.org.uk Subject: Re: [Adastra] Adastra Digest, Vol 42, Issue 10 Woodlands for fuel Hello, I work for a large national charity which owns a large woodland and the comments recently about burning dead wood is yes worrying but there are other forms of biomass which are less damaging. Also burning the dead and dry wood is perhaps not very effecient becuase it has to use a techincal phrase low calorific value which in laymans terms means that it wont produce much heat for the amount wood burnt. Other timber crops if seasoned like Sweet Chestnut, Hornbeam and Oak have higher calorfic values so produce more heat for the amount wood burnt. In our large woodland we are restarting the coppicing cycle on our 300 + acre Sweet Chestnut coupes for biodiversity but the byproduct it will heat a small biomass boiler to heat a number homes. The main parts of the trunk will be used for fencing and other woodland products and the smaller and less straight parts of the trunk will be stacked and when they reach around 15% moisture content they will be chiped up and put into the boiler. We have worked out the whole process will be 95% carbon neutral we gained an extra percent or two becuase we are doing everything in such a small area. Its is believed if the whole of the area of sweet chestnut woodland in Kent and Sussex went into this kind of cycle and managed properly it could supply the whole of the areas need for heating sustanably and for the future. I believe our woodlands are changing too but increasing the areas to forestry is possible. Its one of those ideas that is good but then again could be bad because the areas must selected for the right reasons so damage to important habitats must be mitgated against which I believe they would be. The currently woodland cover is believed to about the same as it was when the Romans occupied Britian. So do we need more trees and is there a potenial for conflict? The goverment wants us to build more homes were are going to put in the infrastructure to cope with this increase? Is there enough space? These are the questions that need to be asked and answered before the trees are plant . Thank you, Richard Newman Reg > From: adastra-requ...@lists.sxbrc.org.uk > Subject: Adastra Digest, Vol 42, Issue 10 > To: adastra@lists.sxbrc.org.uk > Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:17:07 +0000 > > Send Adastra mailing list submissions to > adastra@lists.sxbrc.org.uk > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.sxbrc.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/adastra_lists.sxbrc.org.uk > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > adastra-requ...@lists.sxbrc.org.uk > > You can reach the person managing the list at > adastra-ow...@lists.sxbrc.org.uk > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Adastra digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Tree planting (James, Trevor John J) > 2. Re: Tree planting (SARAH PATTON) > 3. Re: Tree planting (SARAH PATTON) > 4. Goods news for Pagham Harbour (SARAH PATTON) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:22:32 +0000 > From: "James, Trevor John J" <t...@ceh.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: [Adastra] Tree planting > To: Adastra discussion group <adastra@lists.sxbrc.org.uk> > Message-ID: > <9c29afe27e3fba4db1742cc8e8f74ecd04f3857...@nerckwmb1.ad.nerc.ac.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Dear Patrick, > > As a 'sleeping observer' of this discussion group, I thought your bringing of this to everyone's attention was a very useful contribuition, along with the discussion. Thanks. > > Wearing a botanist's hat, as well as former county ecologist hat, I can see to some extent where the FC is coming from. It is very true that our native plant communities are already beginning to shift from their 'natural' characteristics, especially in southern England. In Hertfordshire (home of the blessed Heartwood Forest you mention), we are steadily seeing the demise of beech on the drier chalk hills and gravels. Oak is suffering from increasing stag-headedness and dieback on damper clays (which dry out in drought years), although their deeper roots allow them to survive somewehat better on gravels (ironically). We are also now seeing the take-off of naturally regenerating walnut in a big way on calcareous soils (to the detriment of chalk grassland). So, whether we like it or not, our so-called natural woodlands are going to change before our eyes, and I have to say, we are likely to lose a lot of our native biodiversity with the change, especially highly specialised species attached to ancient woodland habitat. > > The FC is obviously in this for economic as well as environmental benefit, and that may be no bad thing in the right areas. The question is: will new plantings, especially on open country, be a real problem or not, and will we make proper long-term use of the end product? Also, what impact, if any, will this planting really have on (protected) ancient semi-natural woodland? > > I would suggest that implementation of carefully thought-out planting of new woodlands, with species that will not cause us ecological damage in the longer term, will be of some benefit, especially if it enables a forestry infrastructure to be maintained. Alongside this, I think there needs to be a re-appraisal of the way that semi-natural woodldands are managed, with a view to ensuring that any change that may happen through climate change is not exacerbated by damaging management activities, such as excessive opening up of canopies by indiscrimnate coppicing or, especially, unnecessary replanting. At the same time, there may need to be careful selective management of natural regeneration to mitigate any problems of 'new' species coming in as a result of management. Having good foresters in charge of woods, rather than the current wholesale neglect of so many good woods, would be a good thing, on balance. > > Like all things, it depends how things are implemented. > > Kind regards, > > Trevor James (wearing a Hertfordshire naturalist's hats today) > ________________________________________ > From: adastra-boun...@lists.sxbrc.org.uk [adastra-boun...@lists.sxbrc.org.uk] On Behalf Of Patrick Roper [patr...@prassociates.co.uk] > Sent: 26 November 2009 11:50 > To: 'Adastra discussion group' > Subject: Re: [Adastra] Tree planting > > I think there are now many signs that the biodiversity era (i.e. the last 30 years or so) may be fading and being replaced by strategies (that often seem to give a low profile to wildlife) for carbon capture and for dealing with problems that may arise from climate change. > > The Forestry Commission has, as already discussed, become excited about planting trees everywhere including many exotics. It resembles the frame of mind they were in after World War II when they planted all those conifers, often replacing ancient woodland. It is, perhaps, their job to see trees as a crop with a large national organisation looking after them and telling us all what to do. The Woodland Trust too, backed by the Forestry Commission, is buying up agricultural land (for example in Hertfordshire for its Heartwood Forest project) where it intends to plant a million trees, though wildlife conservation still seems to be fairly high on their agenda. Where are all those million trees coming from I wonder? I can almost hear the Government pat on the back. > > I expect too that large private landowners will also benefit from the emerging strategy with grants available for planting Forestry Commission recommended trees, often non-native. > > Planting trees, of course, means raising trees in tree nurseries which provides, not unworthily, rural employment. This simply does not happen if fields are allowed to turn into woods (as they do quite quickly) through natural regeneration. I remember being told at the Liverpool Garden Festival many years ago that the huge number of tree whips planted on site had been a major boost to the nursery trade which, at that time, had its own minister. Tree planting on a large scale is, I believe, an economic and political activity and not much to do with conservation. > > When the Forestry Commission really got its teeth into tree planting in the mid-20th C, too few people saw the dangers to wildlife until it was too late. I feel the wheel may have come full circle with biodiversity out and plantation psychology ?for the common good? in and I am just wondering what, if anything, we should all be doing about it. > > Patrick Roper > > -- > This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC > is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents > of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless > it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to > NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:51:03 +0000 (GMT) > From: SARAH PATTON <house.mo...@btopenworld.com> > Subject: Re: [Adastra] Tree planting > To: Adastra discussion group <adastra@lists.sxbrc.org.uk> > Message-ID: <500756.61202...@web87002.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > A problem I see is that too much dead wood is cleared away as it is (naughty, untidy nature). It is an extremely important habitat for many invertebrates (and, I am sure, lower plants) many of which depend on decaying wood. If a few people are collecting it for firewood then I'm sure there is no problem but if, as it seemed to me they were suggesting, there would be a major 'harvest' of this resource for use as fuel, it could be tragic in terms of biodiversity conservation. > > Another thought, I believe that the government are supposed to have reversed the decline of biodiversity in this country by next year, i.e. in the next few weeks..........!! Is this going to be another embarrassment which will be swept under the carpet? This surely is a target which was always going to be compromised by road building/house building/everything else-building and that old maxim 'surely people must come first'. > > Sarah > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.sxbrc.org.uk/pipermail/adastra_lists.sxbrc.org.uk/attachments/ 20091126/acd8bf48/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:52:05 +0000 (GMT) > From: SARAH PATTON <house.mo...@btopenworld.com> > Subject: Re: [Adastra] Tree planting > To: Adastra discussion group <adastra@lists.sxbrc.org.uk> > Message-ID: <735106.27787...@web87003.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Sorry Bev - just saw your reply. My feelings exactly! > S > > --- On Thu, 26/11/09, tallent...@btinternet.com <tallent...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > From: tallent...@btinternet.com <tallent...@btinternet.com> > Subject: Re: [Adastra] Tree planting > To: "Adastra discussion group" <adastra@lists.sxbrc.org.uk> > Date: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 10:16 > > The thinking here is, growing trees take carbon directly from the atmosphere, so when you burn them you are only releasing carbon that was recently in the atmosphere anyway.? This is percieved as better than burning fossil fuels, which is releasing carbon that has been locked up for billions of years, so adding to the total atmospheric carbon present today. > > So long as new trees are grown to replace those burnt, the overall atmospheric carbon will not be increased by burning wood. > > I saw that countryfile report... my worry was that, if we were all looking for wood to burn, there would be no old rotting timber left around, thus ruining some important habitats. > > Bev > --- On Wed, 25/11/09, Patrick Roper <patr...@prassociates.co.uk> wrote: > > > From: Patrick Roper <patr...@prassociates.co.uk> > > Subject: Re: [Adastra] Tree planting > > To: "'Adastra discussion group'" <adastra@lists.sxbrc.org.uk> > > Date: Wednesday, 25 November, 2009, 23:40 > > > > > > > >? > >? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >? > > > > > > > > The FC cite wood fuel as a > > sustainable use of carbon.? Have a > > look at their report. > > > >? ? > > > > Patrick > > > >? ? > > > > > > > > From: adastra-boun...@lists.sxbrc.org.uk > > [mailto:adastra-boun...@lists.sxbrc.org.uk] On Behalf Of > > SARAH PATTON > > > > Sent: 25 November 2009 22:55 > > > > To: Adastra discussion group > > > > Subject: Re: [Adastra] Tree planting > > > > > > > >? ? > > > > > >? > >??? > >???Along similar lines, I was concerned > > about a report on > >???Countryfile (or similar) about burning lots of dead wood > > as an eco-friendly > >???fuel as it is releasing carbon anyway! > > > >???Sarah > > > >??? > > > >???--- On Wed, 25/11/09, Patrick Roper > > <patr...@prassociates.co.uk> > >???wrote: > >??? > > > >???From: Patrick Roper <patr...@prassociates.co.uk> > > > >???Subject: [Adastra] Tree planting > > > >???To: "'Adastra discussion group'" > > <adastra@lists.sxbrc.org.uk> > > > >???Cc: "Dave Bonsall" > > <davidbons...@woodland-trust.org.uk> > > > >???Date: Wednesday, 25 November, 2009, 22:40 > >??? > >???Many > > subscribers will have > >???heard about the Forestry Commission's very recent > > > >???report recommending that more trees be planted in Britain > > to help reduce > > > >???carbon emissions. > > > >??? > > > >???It has, I think, been implied that these should be native > > species, but there > > > >???is a very depressing list of conifers and other exotics > > the FC think should > > > >???be tried and they are arguing that native species of > > local provenance may > > > >???not always be practical. > > > >??? > > > >???The report can be downloaded here: > > > >??? > > > >???http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/SynthesisUKAssessmentfinal.pdf/$FILE/Synt hesi > > > >???sUKAssessmentfinal.pdf > > > >??? > > > >???I would be interested to hear what others think of > > it.? > > > >??? > > > >???Is it about adapting to climate change, or ensuring the > > survival of the > > > >???Forestry Commission? > > > >??? > > > >???Patrick Roper > > > >??? > > > >??? > > > >? ? > >??? > >??? > >? > > > > > > No virus > > found in this incoming message. > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.81/2524 - Release > > Date: 11/24/09 > > 19:37:00 > > > > > > > >? > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.sxbrc.org.uk/pipermail/adastra_lists.sxbrc.org.uk/attachments/ 20091126/0f4b9f5c/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:16:54 +0000 (GMT) > From: SARAH PATTON <house.mo...@btopenworld.com> > Subject: [Adastra] Goods news for Pagham Harbour > To: Adastra <adastra@lists.sxbrc.org.uk> > Message-ID: <84877.77351...@web87015.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Saw on the local news this morning that, at long last, talks are taking place for the management of Pagham Harbour to be handed over to a conservation organisation! > > Sarah > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.sxbrc.org.uk/pipermail/adastra_lists.sxbrc.org.uk/attachments/ 20091127/a5b59572/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Adastra mailing list > Adastra@lists.sxbrc.org.uk > http://lists.sxbrc.org.uk/adastra > http://lists.sxbrc.org.uk/adastra-archives > > End of Adastra Digest, Vol 42, Issue 10 > *************************************** _____ View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/> now. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.84/2530 - Release Date: 11/27/09 07:58:00