On 1st April, Sylva responded to an interesting article in the British newspaper, The Guardian, published on the 27th March. Read our published letter here. We covered the story itself in a recent post.
Our article prompted a lot of responses and they seem to suggest that forestry has a big job to do in promoting the good it does for both society and the environment.
A lot of comment seemed to focus on the fact the wood was clear felled, including:
- It ought to have been “replanted” 40 years before it was cut down and part of it ought to have been left to die of old age.
- You can’t call it sustainable by removing every single tree and then replanting, even if you stick twice as many trees in the ground as were standing before. Yes, the wood (and stored carbon) will return after a few decades, but what will the insects, birds, squirrels, fungi, shade loving plants, etc do in the meantime?
- You can’t simply replace 100 years of growth, ecology, and wildlife all in 5 years! It is destroyed for another 100 years.
Continuous cover forest management would be one clear way to avoid public criticism, where selected trees would be removed and others would be left standing to create an uneven-aged structure. However, this is a long task when starting with a single aged plantation. The other problem of course is cost.
An interesting omission in all responses was any willingness to answer the question we posed in our article:
“Where do people think our wood comes from?”
We cannot pretend that forest management operations do not have an impact on the environment, on wildlife, and on the landscape. At least we know that here in the UK we operate under the highest standards. What about the 1 million tonnes of hardwoods we import every year into the UK. Are they sourced under the same high standards? What about the timber miles from importation? What about the moribund condition of our woodlands because owners are disengaged with the need to manage, and the subsequent loss of woodland biodiversity?
Is the public response one of NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard)? Or is that people have never thought in any detail about where the wood, that every one seems to appreciate, comes from?
