Well disguised verbal attack

Strathspey & Badenoch HeraldWhile browsing Amazon for books about the Caledonian pinewoods I came across an interesting “review” of George Monbiot’s Feral written by the Amazon user Mr J N Reynolds, dated June 14, 2014.

This “review” is not all it appears to be. It’s quite cleverly done, beginning as it does by praising the writing of George Monbiot and “his source material diligently and comprehensively referenced”.

About half way through, the real point is revealed – a thinly disguised personal attack on Adam Watson, Dick Balharry and Basil Dunlop.

Mr Reynolds writes: “His chapters on restoring elements of Caledonian pinewoods through planting are worth reading, and way ahead of the tired and outdated views of the past that are still stubbornly clung on to by folk such as Watson, Balharry and Dunlop.

“In the world of restoration ecology, the views of these dinosaurs have been supplanted by a new, laudable vision held by those who are trying to bring back the biodiversity and variety to our landscape.”

You might say that’s one man’s opinion, but it’s interesting that:

  • He’s in favour of (so called) restoration by planting (as RSPB Scotland is at Abernethy);
  • He made a point of only naming Watson, Balharry and Dunlop before characterising them “dinosaurs”;
  • Watson, Balharry and Dunlop collaborated on the “Statement of Concern” in which they voiced their concerns about RSPB Scotland’s planting plans for Abernethy;
  • The name of RSPB Scotland’s head of media and communications is James Reynolds. A coincidence? I think not.

Joe Dorward
Bracknell

James Reynolds (RSPB)

Debbie Greene (SNH) to Joe Dorward

SNH Logo
Joe Dorward (by email)

25th May 2015

Dear Mr Dorward

RSPB’s planting plans for Abernethy

Thank you for your email of 4th May 2015. I’ll answer your questions in turn.

Can you explain (1) how the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy ‘will benefit’ from planting – when by definition – planting will reduce the designation of the pinewood from Caledonian to merely Native?

I would like to reassure you that the ‘Caledonian Forest’ qualifying interest of the SAC will not be reduced in status by planting. This habitat is listed in Annex 1 of the EU Habitats Directive, and defined in the Interpretation Manual for European Union habitats (p111). ‘Native Pinewood’ is the corresponding habitat name used in the SSSI series (see Guidelines for Selection of Biological SSSIs; 2a Woodlands). The statutory and policy safeguards for the SAC and the SSSI do not include provision for this habitat to be downgraded by planting. You may be thinking of Abernethy’s status on the Caledonian Pinewood Inventory; this status is also unaffected by planting.

This scheme will benefit the ‘Caledonian Forest’ qualifying feature of the Cairngorms SAC by delivering the conservation objectives for this habitat, available here:
  http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/siteinfo.jsp?pa_code=8217

It will also benefit the corresponding ‘Native Pinewood’ notified interest of Abernethy Forest SSSI by delivering the management objectives in the Site Management Statement, available here:
  http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/siteinfo.jsp?pa_code=9.

Can you explain (2) how you overcame the presumption of the ‘precautionary principle’ to ‘prevent the impact’ that RSPB Scotland’s planting plans for Abernethy will have on the authenticity and naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood there?

As the RSPB’s plans will benefit the qualifying interests of the designated sites at Abernethy, not harm them, we had no need to overcome the precautionary principle. This principle is in any case embedded within the statutory tests contained in the Habitats Regulations, as they apply to plans or projects that could affect SACs and SPAs. Our advice to FCS was that the RSPB’s plans met these tests. ‘Authenticity and naturalness’ is not an aspect on which we advise FCS, as it not a concept referred to in the Habitats Regulations, national legislation or policy protection for SSSIs, guidance on their implementation, or the conservation and management objectives for the designated sites at Abernethy.

I hope this addresses your questions. Please get in touch if you need any further explanation, or if a meeting would be helpful.

Debbie Greene
Aviemore

Let Nature Take Its Course

Strathspey & Badenoch HeraldYour article on aspen (Strathy page 17, 11/12/14) correctly states that Strathspey is its natural stronghold. This lovely tree, the last to come into leaf in spring turning to a striking yellow in autumn, is a minor component of much or our native broadleaved woodlands.

It has survived naturally, despite human efforts to convert them to arable farmland or plantations, in small groups and stands on the better soils of the low-lying strath, but does not grow well in the acid peat moor and mountain.

The article announces the allocation of funds to restore aspen woodlands in Strathspey, but this is a two-edged sword. Our natural woodlands have long attracted the interest of forest ecologists and other visitors because, unlike the rest of the UK, most of our attractive ancient forests have escaped interference from felling and planting.

They were a refuge for many rare species of wildlife extinct in the rest of the country. While planting in suitable treeless areas or plantations is commendable, in ancient semi-natural woodlands such unnecessary interference downgrades their rare and special status, and lessens their scientific interest and value.

By making funds available, landowners will be tempted to cash in by planting inappropriate areas, such as ancient naturally regenerated woodlands and acid moorland, unless strict controls are enforced.

Recent decisions by the authorities entrusted with protecting our natural heritage indicate this is most unlikely. Why are they so afraid of allowing nature to continue to regenerate and expand our fragile ancient native forests and woodlands?

Basil Dunlop
Grantown-on-Spey

Misleading Tree Claims Repeated

Strathspey & Badenoch HeraldI was interested in your article (Strathy, November 6, page 37) detailing plans by RSPB Scotland to block ditches in plantations in the Abernethy Forest National Nature Reserve.

As these were man-made in planted areas, almost entirely in the less natural North Forest near Nethybridge, this is validly presented as restoration.

However, an adjacent article again refers to the controversial RSPB attempts to plant up to 100,000 trees in the upper mainly natural South Forest, in the Ryvoan and Strathy Nethy area which already contains thousands of self-seeded trees.

Previous inaccurate and misleading claims already challenged have been repeated:

Claim – The planting will double the size of the forest
Fact – It is existing and future natural regeneration which will seed and possibly double the size of the forest, not the planting of the equivalent of 40 hectares of new natural regeneration.

Claim – It will restore the Caledonian pine forest to its natural glory.
Fact – The “former glory” was about 5,000 BC in a benign climate, impossible to replicate. One cannot restore a natural forest by unnatural intervention.

Claim – It will expand it to a natural treeline.
Fact – It cannot be a natural treeline if achieved by planting.

Claim– It will join up with other fragmented remnants.
Fact– What other remnants? Planting is planned adjacent to the treeless Cairngorms to the south, except at Glenmore which is already connected by trees through the Pass of Ryvoan.

Basil Dunlop
Grantown-on-Spey

George Campbell (RSPB)

Decision on RSPB Appeal Page ‘Defies Logic’

Strathspey & Badenoch HeraldYou reported (‘Strathy’, July 31, 2014) that a ‘complaint over the RSPB Scotland’s appeal to fund controversial plans to extend an important Strathspey woodland has been thrown out by the regulators’ and that ‘concerns were raised after the complainant, who is not named in the report, read an article in a national newspaper’.

As the unnamed complainant, I must emphasis that my complaint has only ever been about RSPB Scotland’s online appeal page. When I raised my complaint with Alistair McLean of the Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB) I wrote: ‘After twice raising a complaint with the RSPB over their ‘Help us keep Abernethy special’ appeal page (http://www.rspb.org.uk/supporting/campaigns/abernethy/) and twice receiving brief, patronising and dismissive responses, I wish to raise a complaint with you against the RSPB in relation to the false and exaggerated claims they make on that appeal page’.

In spite of my several attempts to keep the attention of the FRSB on the online appeal page, (evidently) RSPB Scotland have been more successful in misdirecting the attention of the FRSB away from it.

In your report, you refer to the FRSB Board being reassured by knowing that ‘the RSPB’s approach to Abernethy Forest had been subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment, public consultation, and comprehensive scrutiny’.

My mind boggles – how can it be that concerns of the fundraising watchdog are reassured by the conclusions of the environmental watchdog?

Meanwhile, RSPB Scotland make contradictory claims.

In their online appeal page they make a ‘struggling to survive’ claim about its condition while (recently) both Stuart Housden and Jeremy Roberts (rightly) boast about how well the woodland is regenerating.

It cannot be both ; their ‘struggling to survive’ claim cannot be anything other than false and misleading and cannot be justified by the FRSB Board’s ‘call to action – fundraising language’ catchphrase.

The decision of the FRSB Board defies logic; the claims on the RSPB Scotland ‘Help us keep Abernethy special’ appeal page are self-evidently misleading, clearly likely to mislead, inaccurate, ambiguous, exaggerated, and omissive.
Joe Dorward
Bracknell

Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy

UNDER FIRE: the RSPB’s claim that Abernethy Forest is struggling to survive has been branded as ‘misleading’

Countryside Should be Shaped by Public Interest

Electric Fence - Mar Lodge Estate

Electric fencing on Mar Lodge Estate in the Cairngorms National Park

Ministers need to act to protect Scotland, says Dave Morris

A few years ago, in Denmark, I asked a simple question – if I was rich enough could I buy thousands of hectares of their best wildlife and landscape areas? No way was the answer. Apparently, when Denmark joined the European Union, they secured a derogation which prevented non-Danish citizens purchasing large tracts of land. Otherwise, I was told, the citizens of other member states would have purchased most of the Danish coastline for their private use.

In Scotland, by contrast, just one Danish citizen, Anders Povlsen, has been able to purchase three large estates in the Cairngorms National Park as well as extensive tracts of Lochaber and Sutherland. There is nothing to stop this rich businessman buying half of Scotland and more.

Nevertheless, most people rather like the outcome of Mr Povlsen’s purchases.

He is committed to wildlife and landscape conservation and the public enjoyment of his land. He employs a management team that has restored much of the natural beauty of Glenfeshie by reducing the grazing pressure from the red deer population. Heavy culling of the deer has secured widespread natural regeneration of the Old Caledonian Pinewood with the riverside flanks and lower hill slopes now clothed in young trees, shrubs and wild flowers. This is a huge contrast to the situation before in previous times when decades of effort by other private landowners and public bodies failed to reduce deer grazing to an appropriate level. Now, however, a flourishing forest ecosystem is emerging from what was a mown down, barren landscape beneath the ancient Scots pines where anything that tried to grow above heather height was eaten.

At the national level, a few months ago, the Scottish Government released the report of its Land Reform Review Group. Its recommendations included some modest proposals to improve the way that Scotland’s red deer populations are managed.

Yes, we the public are responsible for their well-being as deer are a public asset, not a private commodity. We therefore require the landowners to manage this resource on our behalf, in a sustainable way. But, right on cue, landowner representatives arose from the heather, condemning the whole idea of land reform and insisting that everything was alright on the hills and in the glens.

To the front came Atholl Estates, lauded as the perfect example of a modern highland estate that did not need any interference from pesky land reformers and politicians. But Atholl and Glenfeshie are neighbours, managing a common deer population, which depends on agreement and co-operation over culling regimes so that ecosystem health is maintained across a very large part of the National Park.

At present this appears to be very difficult, with excessive numbers of deer wintering in Glenfeshie, threatening the success of the naturally regenerating forest, because culling policies on neighbouring Atholl are inadequate.

Surely Atholl and other estates which manage deer populations in areas such as this should be required to meet public interest objectives, including the natural regeneration of our ancient woodlands, and reduce deer numbers accordingly? Otherwise is the answer new land reform legislation or a plea to more Scandinavians to buy up the rest of Scotland’s hills because our Scottish Parliament has given up on effective land reform?

The future of most of our native woodlands is a lottery, entirely dependent on who owns the land and the attitudes they bring to bear on the responsibilities of ownership. The public interest is weakly expressed – the landowner’s power to determine what happens to our natural habitats and the wildlife they support is too strong. In too many places that power is even reflected in the absence of birds of prey and the presence of illegal poison. Are there any other European countries where landowners are allowed to get away with so much, whatever the ecological consequences?

Even major construction work goes ahead in the hills with no public consultation. Government ministers go weak at the knees when asked to regulate what in every other walk of life would require full planning control.

So roads will continue to be constructed to summit ridges and massive fences will traverse the land.

Earlier this year 20km of impenetrable electrified deer fencing was erected across the hills near Tomintoul, within the Cairngorms National Park and without the knowledge of the Park Authority. Such fencing should be prohibited, as a first step to making Scotland a country where our land and its enjoyment is determined by what is in the public interest and not by the size of the landowner’s wallet.

Misleading Claims Made About Plantings

Strathspey & Badenoch HeraldI refer to the articles on the South Abernethy plantings in the “Strathy” last week.

Despite the ruling of the Fund Raising Standards Board to a complaint (not mine), misleading claims are still being made. I assume these emanate from the RSPB:

“The project will involve planting up to 100,000 trees and will almost double the size of the forest”.

It is not the planting but ongoing natural regeneration from the existing and future self-seeded trees which will increase the area of forest. In other statements, the RSPB has confirmed it has already achieved 800 hectares of new natural regeneration by improved deer management.

“Restoration of the country’s native Caledonian pine forest to its former glory”.

This is not possible by planting – one cannot restore a natural forest by unnatural intervention. Its former glory was in a benign climate over 5,000 years ago, before climate change to cool, wet and windy conditions caused peat build-up and major forest decline.

“Joining up with other fragmented remnants”. The classic form of a dynamic natural Caledonian pinewood is a mosaic of stocked and treeless sections, giving the greatest diversity of habitats. South Abernethy is already joined up with Glenmore, the only other nearby remnant, at Ryvoan.

“No mechanical intervention”. 100,000 spade holes and tree fertilisation with Rock Phosphate permanently damages the soil profile and natural ecosystem.

However I am pleased to read that “No Scots Pines will be planted as part of the current project”, as this will protect the integrity, continuity and natural evolution of this very special and fragile piece of our boreal forest heritage.

Basil Dunlop
Grantown-on-Spey

SNH are wrong about School Wood

Strathspey & Badenoch HeraldRespected ecologist Dr Adam Watson has indicated that Scottish Natural Heritage should provide advice based on ‘sound scientific knowledge’.

Criticising SNH for not having done this over School Wood at Nethybridge, he commented that SNH too often provides advice based on political expediency’ (‘Ecologist blasts SNH stance on School Wood’ Strathy 18 April, 2002).

Referring to the ecological value of the School Wood proposed development site, SNH denied that it was of particular significance’ for ‘any important habitat or species’.

In fact School Wood supports species officially identified as ones for which Scotland has national and international responsibilities.

These include European Protected Species, UK Priority Species, Scottish Biodiversity List Species, Nationally Scarce and Nationally Notable Species and shortlisted Cairngorms Nature Action Plan Species, all of which are vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation. The site also supports wildlife of local interest and value.

Taking otters as an example, SNH has known since at least 2001 that this internationally protected species uses School Wood.

The Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) do at least identify some potential significant impacts on Otters, but have only identified ones on Water quality and not disturbance impacts from people and dogs.

However disturbance and displacement impacts are particularly relevant because the burn used by otters in School Wood is very close to the development site and is small, leaving otters highly vulnerable to damaging disturbance.

It is evident from such examples that it is not only SNH that can be seen as acting with political expediency by downplaying the natural heritage value and sensitivities of School Wood and the damaging impacts of development.

The Cairngorms National Park Authority are similarly misleading the public over School Wood.

Gus Jones
Nethybridge

Balancing the Ecology and Economics of Forest Recovery

Frontiers In Ecology
by Lindsay Deel

After assessing various approaches to promote forest recovery in heavily degraded and deforested tropical areas, scientists are finding that different options can have vastly different outcomes. In a recent paper (Biotropica2014; doi:10.1111/btp.12124), lead author Francis Putz and co-author Claudia Romero (University of Florida [UF], Gainesville) explored strategies for minimizing deforestation and forest degradation and for promoting recovery. “[We focused] on tropical forests outside of protected areas. In particular, we tried to provide a sound ecological foundation for sustainable forest management as well as incentives to do so. We stepped up our efforts to promote responsible forestry as a conservation strategy in response to heartfelt but politically or financially untenable calls to halt logging in tropical forests”, says Putz.

Many land managers and restoration experts have good intentions, but are not aware of the ecological consequences of specific interventions. As Putz explains, “Decision makers unfortunately often lack full understanding of the land—use options available. We’re trying to clarify the trade-offs made when different options are exercised”. For example, when calculating net deforestation rates for a given country, “If old-growth [forests] are cleared but tree plantations are established at a slightly higher rate, that country would be declared as having no net deforestation”.

Putz and his colleagues noted a tendency among managers to plant trees even where natural regeneration is abundant, which could be fueled by ignorance about the ecological distinctions between native and introduced tree species, but also by a cultural preference for trees to grow in straight lines. There may even be financial incentives to plant trees in savannas or grasslands to absorb atmospheric C02. While such planting may result in a net gain of “forest”, a variety of ecological factors, such as biodiversity, could suffer.

“Empowering local communities can help reduce rates of deforestation and forest degradation”, Putz argues. “In many parts of the tropics, rural communities have huge potential roles that have not yet been filled. For this to happen, [members of these communities] first need clear rights: land tenure. Then they need training in forest management, including silviculture, forest engineering, and’ business management, [as well as] markets for the products from the forests they manage, so that their operations are financially sustainable.”

Abernethy Tree Nursery Takes Root

Abernethy Forest

The Caledonian forest has been broken into fragmented areas, so our planting scheme will help to restore and connect the woodland

We aim to restore Abernethy forest – increasing it in size and quality – to secure a home for even more of Scotland’s iconic species. We are delighted that a section of the Caledonian pinewood will be made larger this year. Young trees are already becoming established naturally, and their numbers will be boosted by targeted planting.

Abernethy Forest holds a special place in many people's hearts, not least for the thousands who visit the spectacular Loch Garten Osprey Centre. The ancient woodland provides a safe haven to threatened species including capercaillie, ospreys and red squirrels.

Work is underway to create a tree nursery at the reserve and allow us to grow local pines, birch, rowans and other trees. This will make sure we know the provenance of saplings, and create a sustainable supply of native trees. We are delighted that the ScottishPower Foundation is supporting the establishment of the tree nursery.

It’s an exciting project, and once established, we will work with volunteers, schools and the local community to cultivate and plant tree saplings. Missing broadleaf species, such as birch, willow and aspen, will be included. With the help of volunteers, we will enrich and reconnect Abernethy to the neighbouring forest at Glenmore, enhancing the diversity of wildlife present through the creation of a wildlife corridor.

Our work is receiving further support from Walkers Shortbread, through a new on-pack promotion with the Speyside-based company. Look out for the RSPB sticker on packets of Walkers Shortbread. A 10p donation for each sale will fund tree planting in the Speyside area and management of our Abernethy reserve.