Showing posts with label forests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label forests. Show all posts

Wood-based computer chips could be the answer to the electronic waste crisis

rtr3ucfb

Wood-based computer chips are a reality, and they could make the recycling of electronics a much simpler task.

Developed at the University of Wisconsin by a group led by engineering professor Zhenqiang (Jack) Ma, the wood-derived computer chip is made by processing wood into nanocellulose paper, which is then used as a substitute for a silicon. Unlike the rigid silicon wafer that serves as a plate for transistors in most computer chips, Ma’s chip uses a translucent, bendable plate made of highly processed wood. According to a piece in the MIT Technology Review, using nanocellulose in lieu of conventional silicon requires just a tiny fraction of the semiconducting material otherwise needed in the process, and doesn’t sacrifice performance:

In two recent demonstrations, Ma and his colleagues showed they can use nanocellulose as the support layer for radio frequency circuits that perform comparably to those commonly used in smartphones and tablets. They also showed that these chips can be broken down by a common fungus.

The military, the MIT publication notes, has had an interest in electronics that could rapidly decay to avoid leaking sensitive information; but Ma’s ambition for biodegradable chips is mainly to help combat electronic waste.

Read more here.

How forests can help to feed the world

Two men harvest ramón nuts in Guatemala.

A new report shows how forests around the world can help eliminate malnutrition while fighting climate change.

Often, feeding the world’s growing population and protecting natural landscapes are pitted against one another. We know that much of the world’s deforestation, particularly in the tropics, is associated with the expansion of crops like palm oil and soy, as well as cattle and cocoa.

Yet a new report from the International Union of Forest Research Organizations shows that forests can play an important role in eliminating hunger and creating more food security. This is important, because protecting forests has been identified as a key and cost-effective means of fighting climate change. So, a better understanding of how forests help feed people may be another tool in the arsenal of their defense.

Over a billion people around the world experience chronic hunger, and twice as many suffer from periods of food insecurity. “Unfortunately, there is little current appreciation of the diverse ways in which these tree-based landscapes can supplement agricultural production systems in achieving global food security,” the authors write.

Read more: http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/how-forests-can-help-feed-the-world.html

Encouraging planting trees will sequester carbon and conserve habitat

by Michael smith (Veshengro)

Oh my G-d! They have needed a university study again to “discover” something that every proper forester has known for ever and a day. They, however, needed a study for it again. Talking about stating the obvious.

Rewarding landowners for converting farmland into forest will be key to sequestering carbon and providing wildlife habitat, according to a new study by Oregon State University and collaborators.

Current land-use trends in the United States will significantly increase urban land development by mid-century, along with a greater than 10 percent reduction in habitat of nearly 50 at-risk species, including amphibians, large predators and birds, said David Lewis, co-author of the study and an environmental economist in OSU's College of Agricultural Sciences.

"One of the great challenges of our time is providing food, timber and housing, while also preserving the environment," said Lewis. "Our simulations show our growing appetite for resources could have cascading effects on wildlife and other vital services provided by nature."

"Policymakers have tools to increase tree cover and limit urban sprawl, such as targeted taxes, incentives and zoning," he added.

Paying landowners $100 an acre per year to convert land into forest would increase forestland by an estimated 14 percent and carbon storage by 8 percent by mid-century, the researchers say. Timber production would increase by nearly 20 percent and some key wildlife species would gain at least 10 percent more habitat, they added.

Yet this subsidy program would also shrink food production by 10 percent and comes with an annual $7.5 billion price tag, said Lewis.

Another policy option — charging landowners $100 per acre of land that is deforested for urban development, cropland or pasture — would generate $1.8 billion a year in revenue. More than 30 percent of vital species would gain habitat. Yet carbon storage and food production would shrink slightly, according to the study.

What is worrying in our age is that we seem to need a scientific study, conducted by some researchers, to “discover” the things that we have, actually, known for a long time already; in some cases for ever and a day.

Foresters through the ages have known the importance of trees and their habitat for the Planet, even though they may not have expressed it, or been able to express this, in a scientific way. But is that really necessary. We need more trees, period! It is that simple. And we need them not just for carbon capture (carbon sequestration) but also for raw materials. After all wood is made by trees and not in some factory.

© 2015

For more on woodland management, especially coppicing and why, etc. see “Managing our Woods”, a small book that explains the whys and wherefores of managing our woods in this way and calls for us to return to that way.

Is it time for the Forestry Commission to be stood down?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

European Beech1lowIs it time for the Forestry Commission, maybe, to be stood down and that our woodlands (and our forests) be placed into cooperative – I did say cooperative not corporate – management? I certainly do think so and so does the cooperative movement. At least they do think so as far as cooperative management of our woodlands is concerned.

I am not saying that the British Forestry Commission is not fit for purpose; it has had its time and purpose and its original purpose, when founded just after World War One, has been fulfilled, and that already a long time ago. Thus the Commission is, to all intents and purposes, obsolete; both the purpose and the Commission.

The original brief of the Forestry Commission was to produce timer for the trenches for another possible way (in the end World War Two was different and did not require that much on timber for trench fortification) and for the pits, the mines, and that was the very reason for pine and spruce plantations. Today, however, our woods (and forests) require a different kind of direction and management and the Commission, in fact, seems to be almost incapable of providing that, and our industry is asking for more hardwood than softwood.

While we might need in Britain, a Ministry or Department, of Woods and Forests, that has an advisory role and a legislative one and one especially that ensures that our forest cover is increased rather than diminished and that the appropriate trees are planted and that woods are managed in the age-old ways that have served us and the woods so very well over previous millennia, and that also has a hand in research, and quasi-quango such as is the Forestry Commission is surplus to requirements.

Our country's woodlands especially, and here in particular those that are in “public” hands, for starters, should be handed over to be managed by interested community groups, but also by individuals and small cooperative enterprises, to be run for the good of the wood and the nation.

While the Commission talks much about the need of bringing all the woods in Britain back into production it does very little to actually facilitate this and often seems more of a hindrance.

The Forestry Commission, to a great degree, despite its many words, has become focused on the amenity use of its – actually the nation's – forests and far too many resources are pumped into the creation of “play grounds”, be those mountain bike trails, or whatever, and treat the forests more and more like a leisure enterprise and nature “reserves”. Wrong approach. Period!

The Commission keeps talking about the need of bringing more, ideally all, of our woods back into production but still does not seem to understand how this is too happen while at the same time pandering to leisure and recreation and creating trails for this and that.

The brief of the Forestry Commission from its founding was the production of timer for the War Department and the mines and not for furniture manufacturing and even building in Britain. The majority of the hardwood for furniture came from abroad, from the Empire, with but a little home-grown.

What is needed today is timber for British industry, including the building industry, from local sources, and the predominately conifer plantations of the Forestry Commission cannot supply that.

In years gone by our woods and forests had greater biodiversity and wildlife in spite little debris being left on the forest floor. Is our modern management to blame? I certainly do think so and so do others.

If we want state forestry, and national forests, in the United Kingdom it would be best to have a proper Ministry of Forests and a Forest Service but by far better would it be to have proper cooperative community-based management of our woodlands and forests – all of them.

The Forestry Commission is, basically, the law maker – or maker of the rules governing forestry (granting felling licenses, for instance) while it is also the biggest producer of timber. Thus it is almost like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. We need a Ministry of Forests or a Department of Forests that governs – where needed – operators and not a quango like the Forestry Commission.

© 2015

Local activists are paying with their life to protect their forests in Peru

Peruvian anti-logging activist Edwin Chota, Saweto, PeruEdwin Chota was killed in the forest he had fought to protect.

The Peruvian environmental activist had appealed to his government for help after receiving death threats from the illegal loggers that plagued the area around his village, deep in the Amazon rainforest. And yet, in September, he and three other prominent members of the Peruvian Ashéninka community were ambushed and shot on a jungle trail as they travelled to meet fellow activists from neighbouring Brazil. Chota’s widow journeyed six days by river to the regional capital to report their deaths.

Chota’s death is a reminder of the price that local activists in some of the world’s most remote areas are paying as they fight to defend their communities from exploitation and industrialisation. Global demand for natural resources is growing, and indigenous people are receiving little protection from those who would destroy their land, forests, and rivers. Instead, they are being murdered with impunity at an alarming rate, sometimes with the complicity of government authorities.

Peru is a prime example. It ranks fourth in the world for murders of environmental activists (after Brazil, Honduras, and the Philippines), with 57 activists in the country killed from 2002 to 2013, according to campaigners Global Witness. More than half of the country is still covered by rainforest, but those forests are being cut down at an accelerating rate to satisfy voracious international demand for timber and related products.

Sadly, this phenomenon is not confined to Peru. According to Global Witness, from 2002 to 2013, more than 900 people in 35 countries died defending the environment or fighting for the right to their land. The death toll has risen sharply in recent years. Worldwide, activists are murdered at an average rate of two per week. Given that such deaths tend to go unreported, the real number could be even higher. In only 10 cases have the perpetrators been brought to justice.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/17/environ

Save Our Forests & Public Land!

Hands Off Our Forests

The new Infrastructure Bill will allow development on ANY public land or forest, allow anywhere to be fracked and will allow the extermination of barn owls, red kites, wild boar and goshawks. We must stop this bill becoming law!

Infrastructure-bill.jpgDID you know legislation is currently being pushed through Parliament that will allow any public land to be transferred by a Government agency, all rights of way extinguished, to private developers?

Did you know the same law – the Infrastructure Bill – will allow any substance whatsoever to be dumped under any land, and that it will become a legal objective to frack anywhere where there is the potential of shale gas, or turn any coal seam into gas?

Did you also know that the same law gives the potential go-ahead to exterminate barn owls, red kites, goshawks, wild boar, and a great many other species not deemed as 'native'?

You'd be forgiven for not knowing because incredibly – despite its massive implications for nature, the environment and also our rural and urban spaces – the Infrastructure Bill has almost entirely not made the news.

There are no celebrities crying 'foul' or any politicians who are supposed to be opposed to the Government. It's almost as if all parties want this law to be passed under the radar, because whoever gets in after May 2015 will have carte blanche to hand over our countryside, urban public spaces, and the ground we walk and live on, to multinational companies.

Read more: http://www.permaculture.co.uk/news/0411145760/save-our-forests-public-land

India Man Plants Forest Bigger Than Central Park to Save His Island

Forest_Man-film-YouTube-screenshotAt the age of 17, after witnessing hundreds of snakes dying from drought on his island in India, Jadav Payeng started to grow trees on what was barren land devastated by erosion.

35 years later a jungle of almost 3000 acres (1200 hectares) — larger than Central Park — has grown in the wasteland, thanks to his daily careful cultivation. Diverse animals, including Elephants, now enjoy his lush oasis.

A documentary, Forest Man, shows how one person can change the course of nature.

Watch video here: http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/forest-man-of-india-film/

Creating Mini-forests Anywhere!

mini-forestsShubhendu Sharma is an industrial engineer, who used to work for a well known car company. Now he makes mini forests - everywhere.

Whilst at the car company, Shubhendu met Akira Miyawaki who was brought in to grow a forest in the factory to make it carbon neutral. Shubhendu was so fascinated, he joined Akira as a volunteer to learn the methodology.

He planted up his garden and within two years, noticed rain water didn't dry up in the summer, more birds were in the local area and he even harvested seasonal fruits.

Using multi-layering, these forests grow 10 times faster, have 100% more biodiversity and are 30 times more dense than a typical forest.

Read more: http://www.permaculture.co.uk/videos/creating-mini-forests-anywhere

Urban trees save hundreds of lives and billions of dollars each year in the U.S.

Trees in Chicago photoA new study by the USDA's Forest Service tells us what all good treehuggers already knew; trees are good for you, especially if you live in a urban area. While it's impossible to know exactly what benefits the urban trees bring us - including many psychological ones - the researchers have tried to estimate their impact using computer simulations. Results: About 850 lives are saved each year, the number of acute respiratory symptoms is lower by about 670,000 incidents each year, and the total health care savings attributed to pollution removal by trees is around $7 billion a year. Not bad!

The researchers estimate that the trees in the U.S. removed 17.4 million tonnes of air pollution in a single year. While the air filtration done by trees is much higher in rural areas, the benefits are bigger in urban areas because population density and pollution are denser.

Read more: http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/urban-trees-save-hundreds-lives-and-billions-dollars-each-year-us.html

New report highlights threat to future of forestry industry

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Confor LogoThe future of the forestry industry in Scotland is under serious threat unless urgent action is taken to secure the long-term supply of timber, a leading industry figure has warned.

Stuart Goodall, Chief Executive of Confor: Promoting forestry and wood, said action had to be taken now to protect the 40,000 jobs supported by the forestry sector in Scotland, many of them in rural communities with few other large employers.

Speaking after the Forestry Commission (FC) produced its first-ever 50-year and 100-year timber supply forecasts, Mr Goodall said Confor had analysed the figures and concluded that a ‘trough' in supply of 60 million cubic metres of timber could cost Scotland more than 1000 jobs and mean that a chance to cut carbon emissions by 55 million tonnes would be missed.

Mr Goodall said: "Action has to be taken now to safeguard a Scottish success story and ensure our industry continues to thrive in in the long-term. That means hitting existing targets to plant 6000 hectares of commercial forestry every year until 2022 - and then maintaining that through to 2042. We cannot wait until it is too late. A failure to act will see a damaging drop in investment, inevitably leading to job losses - and will make it exceptionally difficult for Scotland to meet its carbon reduction targets."

He added: "The regular 25-year FC forecasts were really helpful - but the life cycle of a softwood tree is more like 35-50 years, so we needed a longer view of where timber supply was heading. Confor feared a falling away of supply in the 30-40 year timeframe, which is why we asked for a 50-year and a 100-year forecast to be prepared. Security of supply is everything in a long-term industry like forestry - that's what the big companies in Scotland, like James Jones, Norbord and Glennons, look at when deciding on future investment."

Currently, the sector is confident, with timber supply at a record high - but Mr Goodall added: "Beyond the 25-year forecast, a gentle rise in availability gives way to a steeper fall - as a result of the falling of commercial planting in the last few years. That's why we analyzed the long-term figures and their impact - and our findings are a serious cause for concern."

Mr Goodall called on the Scottish Government to fulfill its commitment to plant 60,000 hectares of commercial forestry by 2022 - and to further commit to planting 6,000 hectares a year until 2042: "If that happens, we have estimated that 1000 jobs will be secured and 55 million tonnes of carbon can be saved - and the virtuous cycle of economic and environmental benefit will continue. Forestry is an exceptionally important business sector - as well as 40,000 jobs, it adds around £1.7 billion in value to Scotland's economy every year. Increasing domestic planting can also make a hugely positive impact on the balance of payments by reducing imports."

Tom Bruce Jones, a Confor board member and joint Managing Director of Scotland's leading sawmiller James Jones & Sons, said: "The fall-off in supply might seem far away, but we have to act now to secure a successful industry for the future. There is a big problem coming over the horizon - and it wasn't covered by the existing forecast. By the time the traditional cycle of 25-year forecasts had identified this problem, it would have been too late to do anything about it."

Mr Bruce Jones, whose company has substantial operations in Lockerbie, Moray and Angus, added: "We have to start tackling the challenges that are affecting planting rates and to ensure more trees are going into the ground right now. We also need to ensure we are replanting our forests after they are harvested. That will give businesses like ours confidence to keep investing.

"Forestry in Scotland is currently a great success story - so let's to keep it that way. A sustainable timber supply creates long-term investment, which is good for the economy and jobs, good for the environment - and good for Scotland."

Confor has already campaigned successfully in a number of areas: securing a fair balance of grants for planting commercial and non-commercial woodland; speeding up applications for new planting; securing additional Scottish Government funding for new planting; and ensuring existing woodlands removed in the event of disease or for wind farms are re-planted elsewhere.

But Mr Bruce Jones said there was still much to do: "We have to commit to keep planting - it's a simple as that. The industry is in great shape but a failure to act now means that by the time the problem is staring us in the face, it is too late."

The report, the ‘50-Year Forecast of Softwood Availability', is part of the National Forest Inventory. (NFI) It can be downloaded from the Forestry Commission website: www.forestry.gov.uk/inventory

While softwood is one thing, as far as forestry and timber is concerned, what we must look at much more, however, in the UK, and elsewhere, is to bring broadleaved hardwood production back into our woods and forests and especially the practice of coppicing.

But, then again, the Forestry Commission was never designed and created to do that. Its job was the creation, originally, of timber for pits and the war effort and not much seems to have changed in their way of thinking, as softwood is still the main concentration point for their work, it would seem.

Softwood, though not in the regimented plantations either, is fine and good on grounds where other trees may not grow too well but a good mix must be created rather than the monocultures that not only look ugly and are almost devoid of life on the forest floor but which also are susceptible to all manner of diseases.

What forestry and woodland management needs in Britain, including Scotland, is a serious rethink and a new way of doing things which, in fact, is not a new way but a very old one.

© 2014

Forest and wood are protectors of the climate

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Within the framework of photosynthesis trees extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and thus reduce the CO2 content.

wald-klimaschützerIn order to produce one ton of wood trees extract from the atmosphere around 1.9 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) detrimental to the climate and lock up 500 kg carbon in the wood. Thus our woods and forests perform a critical and crucial contribution to the protection of the climate. The proper utilization and development of our woods and forests together with a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions form an important measure in the fight against the greenhouse effect.

Woods and forests give us air to breathe and raw materials for our life. Without forests and woods there would be no life possible on Earth for every human and every animal requires oxygen in order to be able to breathe. A single say 100 year old beech tree produces every year about 4,600 kilograms of oxygen; enough for one adult to breathe for 13 years..

For trees oxygen is sort of a by-product in the production of timber and foliage. By means of photosynthesis the tree absorbs carbon-dioxide and together with water and the energy from the sun turns this into sugar molecules, required for the production of wood. The oxygen left over during this process the tree exhales into the atmosphere while it locks carbon up in its biomass.

Different to most plants trees do not just grow upwards but also outwards as far as the trunk is concerned. Responsible for the growth of the girth of the tree trunk is the so-called cambium, a material that created the cells of the wood. During winter it takes a little break and this can be seen by the growth rings of the tree.

Carbon-dioxide storage with triple effect

Alone in the forests and woodlands of Germany are currently around 2.6 billion tons of carbon fixed in the wood of the trees. This is equal to a sequestration of 9.5 billion tons of carbon-dioxide.

Woodlands and forest play an important role in combating the effects of the greenhouse effect and climate change and in relation to that directly threefold. First they remove carbon-dioxide out of the atmosphere and stores it in the wood. This storage is extended, secondly, when the wood is used in new buildings, renovations of old buildings and for the production of furniture where the carbon stored in the timber is then locked in for as long as the timber remains timber and is neither burned or disposed off in the waste stream.

A low energy house built to a great extent from wood, for example, relieves the atmosphere of around 80 tons of carbon-dioxide.

And thirdly does wood, when used in building, replace other energy intensive materials such as steel and concrete which are produced on the basis of finite raw materials.

This means that – and this is the case in Germany and other countries – if our woods and forests are managed in a sustainable manner, that is to say that never more timber is being harvest than regrowth available, the resource wood never going to be exhausted and permanently renewable. The ratio between harvest and regrowth is always regarded to be at least a 1:3 that is to say one felled tree is replaced by at least three new ones, either already growing as natural regeneration or being planted. In fact, the ideal scenario is to plant, in addition to the natural regeneration existing.

Sustainably managed woods and forests make an enormous contribution towards combating the greenhouse effect and climate change through their ability of reducing the carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere and they are thus protectors of the climate.

We need to manage our woods and forests properly so that not only do they do the job as they do now but to increase the CO2 sequestration by means of trees. The more trees the greater this absorption and at the same time we get wood as raw material.

© 2013

Woods and forests are my most favorite natural environment

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

One of the many reasons that woodland is my favorite natural environment is because it is ever-changing and there is always something new to see, experience and enjoy.

woodland1-1The changes can be subtle like the shoots of new flowers, the forming of new buds, the appearance of fragrant blossom or a sudden burst of short-lived fungi, or they can be dramatic like the transformation caused by mist or snow or a storm.

Whatever time of year woodland is either full of life or the signs of life to come. It is also a world cut off from the endless hustle and bustle of modern society.

It is as though, by entering a wood you have passed through a portal into another world. It is just endlessly fascinating.

And trees like oak, yew and elder are so entwined with our history and our folklore and what makes us what we are that we have a special spiritual connection with woods that we do not have with any other environment.

Most importantly though to me a woodland is a source of materials for making products and one that provides, when properly managed, this resource, those materials, for ever.

A walk in the woods or days working in the woodlands also leads to new finds from which to craft this or that. There is a sapling that either now, or in years to come, will make for a great walking stick; there are the branches that need to be removed from a tree that render another load of “branch hooks”, and so much more.

You will never find me happier than when walking or working in woodland. And my greatest passion is to manage our woods in one way or the other and management many of our woods today need more than anything.

The biggest “problem” I encounter when walking through some woodland is that my mind is always active seeing the management problems or better the lack of management in those woods and I am always thinking as to how those woods could be made productive again and to benefit wildlife and man.

© 2013

Managing our woods

by Michael Smith, RFA, RFS, EcoFor

Britain, for thousands of years, had one of the finest woodland management systems; one that is hardly known and used elsewhere, namely coppicing.

Many misguided people honestly believe that woods and countryside need not to be managed but they do in order to be beneficial to both man and wildlife. And in Britain we have done a great job in doing so, especially as far as woodlands are concerned, for thousands of years. However, since World War Two neglect has set in and that for a number of reasons.

One being cheap imported wood, often tropical hardwoods, hazel beanpoles being replaced by cheap bamboo canes or even plastic ones, and the aforementioned misguided environmentalists what have insisted that trees and woodlands must remain unmanaged as 'Nature manages itself'.

But Nature does not manage Herself and besides we need and want wood for many things and if we replace handles of tools and utensils with plastic we are using a non-renewable resource, predominately oil.

Wood, properly managed, is a resource that continually renews itself and especially if and when the wood is harvested from sustainable coppice operations, and this wood is not just for firewood.

Firewood should never be the first consideration in woodland management when it comes to woodland products as there are many more things that can be created from the timber of much greater value, in more than one sense, than simply firewood or beanpoles.

Using the wood harvest for firewood should be the last resort although it is often seen as the primary one and as an easy way to make some income from a woodland. But it is far better to put the thinking cap on and ass a higher value to the timber produced by turning into other, longer lasting, products that into something that just goes up in smoke, literally.

In the first instance, when the management of a (long) neglected wood begun the timber may, unfortunately, be suited for little else than firewood or charcoal. But even in such cases of neglected woods thought come into play as to whether there is not more that can be made out of the timber; as in value-added products.

A large tree that is felled in the opening up of a neglected wood, be this sycamore, beech, ash oak, hornbeam, birch, or whatever, or a large stemmed coppice stool, has definitely and definitively more uses that just firewood. Marketing the wood, though, may at times be a chore and that is why many shirk from it.

Our woods produced the timber for all our needs centuries ago and most of those woods were managed as one or the other form of coppice. And those woods supplied all, or at least almost all, of our timber needs and they can again, or at least to a large extent.

The wood for tools and tool handles came from our woods, as did the wood for our kitchen- and eating utensils. Also for our fencing, our farm and garden gates, for our wattle and daub walls, and much more.

Today, because of the decline and lack of proper management of the British woodlands, small and large, the wood for our tool handles and sports equipment is, almost all, imported from abroad, such as American Ash for tool handles and cricket stumps, etc. And, despite the fact that English or British Ash is superior and preferred. Lack of wood from British sources, however, forces manufacturers to source timber from abroad.

The same, it has to be said, even applies to firewood and in 2011 Britain imported logs from afar afield as Poland, Western Russia and the Ukraine. Certainly not a sustainable way to go about it and that all because (no, not “because the lady loves Milk Tray”) in Britain the (proper) management of our woods has fallen by the wayside.

Time for a change and to bring our woods, small and large, privately owned or in public hands, including those in parks, back into production. Wildlife and the Planet will thank us for it.

© 2013

Coppice management

by Michael Smith, RFS, RFA, EcoFor

The management of woodlands and forests by means of coppicing – Niederwaldbewirtschaftung in German – is often, especially elsewhere in Europe, but also in the UK, only seen as a means to produce firewood and, maybe, beanpoles and some charcoal.

CoppiceHowever, the products that can be made by means of coppice management of woods and forests is far greater and, in fact, this was the way that we managed our woods and forests in Britain for thousands of years, and that very well and successfully. The woods and forests thrived under this case more and better than under any other form of management.

While other countries used this form of woodland and forest management also in the great majority of European countries it has now been abandoned, and has been thus already for many, many decades, in favor of a management that can be done with more mechanized means than coppicing.

The abandonment of coppicing in British woodlands has cost us dearly in terms of almost destroyed woods. In some areas the old coppice stools are almost beyond redemption and this could result in the loss of the entire or almost the entire wood.

The Forestry Commission never did much in that department but then it was not its brief. Its job was the production of timber for the mines and some other applications, including the war effort.

After the Second World War coppicing in our woods started to decline drastically and dramatically, much due to plastic products, and bamboo canes for beanpoles and such rather than wood.

Wooden tent pegs, which were one of the products from coppice woods, were replaced, even by military and scouts with metal and plastic and the same went for so many other products that were once produced from the wood from our coppiced woodlands.

Baskets, once woven from willow from coppicing and pollarding operations, and some other pliable woods, were replaced by plastic and the same for the trugs and such used by bakers and others.

Now, with the revival and renaissance of wood stoves firewood is in great demand but our neglected native woods cannot even provide a small proportion though they could provide it all (at current demand levels) if they would but be managed and we import firewood from as far afield as Poland and Western Russia. Not very sustainable at all.

The same goes for charcoal and most of the charcoal on sale in Britain today, and barbecuing is very much the in thing, also in restaurants, has to come from abroad and, in that case, it comes, primarily, from tropical hardwoods.

The problem, aside from an environmental one, is that that kind of charcoal does not, unlike the local one, light easily and requires chemical accelerants in the form of barbecue fire lighters. Those, however, leave a residue and not just on the coal.

Before the “advent”, so to speak, of coal, charcoal fired the Industrial Revolution in Britain and while it, probably, caused some deforestation, most of it was sourced from coppice operations.

Wooden spoons, spatulas and other wooden kitchen utensils were once made by local craftsmen from local coppiced timber but from a certain time onwards those were made from often imported woods by factories and now the great majority of those utensils are made, in fact, abroad, in the main, nowadays, in China.

In times past almost everything wood came from local woodlands, with the exception of some furniture, that were under coppice management and the woods and the craftsmen prospered.

Coppicing is one of the best ways to maintain the health of woodlands and this system of management has great benefits for the environment. In addition to this this old way of woodland management also will benefit the local economies and that is too very important indeed.

Our woodlands and forest must be brought back under this age old management system in order to restore them to health and for the local economy of craftsmen and -women to be revitalized.

Unfortunately misguided environmentalists for years have been working against this as they, having read only those books that back up their own beliefs, believe that no tree should ever be cut down, for any reason.

In fact many have vehemently campaigned and forced, for lack of a better word, local authorities, woodland and forest owners and managers to leave woods in their “natural” state or allow them too “return” to a wildwood state. But there is no wildwood in the British Isles and has not been any for at least a millennium or more. Not that that has interested those.

Woodlands, many of them state with venom in their voices, do not need to be managed. Nature will do it all itself. Which is a false notion as, alas, left to their own devices those, formerly managed woods, will decay and that will the end of them.

Coppice stools that are not cut will, in the end, break apart and that often almost simultaneously and thus the woods are no more but just a piece of useless “wilderness”.

As soon as brambles and bracken take over – and this is very soon if a wood is not managed – and then not controlled the loss of habitat follows in a very short space of time. Brambles and bracken stop light getting to the woodland floor, and the same is true when the woodland is not being thinned, and anything of value will die and be smothered. But, they keep claiming, Nature will manage it all itself; it just takes a while.

This is not true, however, and man has to keep the regime of management that our forefathers began many hundreds of years ago if we wish to retain those woods and forests.

For thousands of years we have managed our woodlands and forests, more often that not by coppicing, and they thrived under our care and if we want them to thrive again we must bring those woods and forests that have been neglected back under this management regime and it must be done now, before it is too late.

© 2013

Let the woods be wild woods

by Michael Smith (Veshengro), RFA, RFS, EcoFor

Time and again this call is heard from misguided and misinformed self-styled experts on the environment and other individuals when woodland management programs are instigated.

wildwood1They will state that the woods should be left wild and that woodlands do not need to be managed which is, obviously, entirely wrong as there are no wild woods, where Nature “manages” the affairs anywhere in Britain and most of Europe. All our woods have been managed before at some time and thus, in order to thrive, require continuous careful management to benefit wildlife, the community and also the local economy.

The woods in Britain have been managed for thousands of years and until just after World War Two we did manage them well on a proper basis. However, ever since that time the management of our woods, small and large, has gone into serious decline and the woods have seriously suffered from this neglect in management.

If left to its own devices a woodland will become useless, not only on an economical term but also and especially on an environmental term. Brambles and bracken will take over, cut out all light to the woodland floor and thus there will be, in the end, no diversity. All that will be left is a tangle of brambles and other such plants and bracken.

Trees growing too close together will damage each other, create a dark forest floor with no life and, in the end, will destroy each other and die.

For trees to grow properly and thus being beneficial to all they need to be thinned out and good growth encouraged. This is a laborious task but one that benefits the woods and can also be of benefit to the local economy as the wood that has to be removed can be used by a variety of woodland- and wood workers.

Trees, and this is something that many of people also do not wish to understand, who all the time protest against the cutting of any trees, have a limited lifespan and some trees one that is shorter than that of others.

When a tree goes over the peak and begins the slow march towards death it stops becoming a carbon sequester and actually becomes a net producer of carbon dioxide. In addition to that the process of decay that also starts at about this time, rotting the heart wood, which the tree no longer requires, also releases methane; the latter being a greenhouse gas forty times more dangerous to the environment than carbon dioxide, and thus itself contributes to climate change.

Well managed and maintained woods, on the other hand, where there trees that need to are “culled”, if we may call it thus, are beneficial on all levels, and especially in regard to biodiversity.

Allowing, for instance, the once coppiced woods of Britain to return to “Nature”, as it is often demanded, will result, in a very short time, in the coppice stools breaking apart, for lack of management, and the woods turning into a wilderness that has is of no benefit, not even to wildlife.

That is why woods are managed, lending Nature a helping hand. Not by fighting Nature but by working with Her, and thus keeping and even creating a healthy balance to benefit all.

For thousands of years we have managed the woods in Britain (and in other parts of Europe) and we have managed them well. Only in the last half to three-quarters of a century have they been allowed to fall into serious neglect and disrepair and we must manage them once again, including those of our parks and open spaces, as our forefathers did if we do not want to lose them and the habitat that they provide.

The very biodiversity of the British woodlands is a result not of Nature alone but of people working with Nature to maintain a healthy balance to benefit all; wildlife and the community. Left alone those woods will become an impenetrable wilderness that even animals will shy away from.

When there still were wild boar and other animals now no longer in the British woods in our woods and forests brambles and bracken, and other such invasive vegetation, was kept in check. Today this is no longer the case and any woods, as can be seen so very often, allowed to return to “wilderness” turns into nothing but a wilderness devoid of almost anything bar those species.

A wood the trees of which form a closed canopy also does not allow for natural regeneration as the young saplings, if the seeds at all germinate, do not get enough light to thrive and without it they will simply die. In most cases the seeds do not even germinate for lack of sunlight and thus the floor will be devoid of anything, almost.

Only a well managed wood is a productive wood in all senses of the word and that is the reason that our woods everywhere must come back into proper management, a management that woks with Nature and not against Her and a good forester ensure just that.

For the good of the environment and the community all our woods need to managed again and managed well.

© 2013

Forest restoration and thinning operations

Forest restoration initiatives reduce wildfire risk and produces responsible timber

by Michael Smith (Veshengro), RFS, RFA, EcoFor

Forests that are overcrowded with small diameter trees are more susceptible to devastating wildfires, as smaller trees act as kindling to fuel the blaze and as veritable ladders that allow flames to reach the forest canopy. In addition to that the misguided practice of leaving tree crowns and branches as “habitat piles” (for the wildlife, as the greenies keep crying) creates even more fire ladders and thus danger of such fires. Furthermore those “habitat piles” also are a source of tree diseases.

Since 2010, high-intensity fires have burned more than 5 million acres of forest lands across the western and central United States. But prevention of forest fires spreading is only one issue that is being dealt with by thinning and other proper forest and woodland management measures. The other is to allow light in and also stop trees damaging each other.

What is forest thinning?

Thinning of woods and forests has nothing to do with clear-cutting, as some people think, and it is also not harmful to the woods and forests. The opposite rather. But often it is very difficult to get misguided greenies to understand and comprehend this because they have read and read books and such that claim that cutting down any tree of any size and age is bad for the environment.

Nobody wants to clear-cut the forests, as that would be rather counterproductive. But there is a way to thin the forest that is healthy for the habitat, healthy for the forest and protects the forest from catastrophic fires and also to create valuable habitat for wildlife.

A woodland or forest whose canopy is too dense does not allow enough light to penetrate for other things to grow and the same goes for too much undergrowth. Both are not beneficial for the woods nor the flora and fauna. But this is something that people often do not understand in the same way as they do not understand that paper is not bad either.

So, what good does thinning do?

To put it simply, when a fire moves through an overcrowded forest, in which trees are spaced very close together, small diameter trees act as kindling to fuel the blaze and as veritable ladders that allow the flames to move up into the forest canopy, causing widespread devastation that can decimate thousands of acres at a time.

On another level thinning improves the environment of the woods and forests and thinning out the small trees allows the bigger trees to grow stronger, better and healthier.

The woodcutters of the future are not clearing the forest, they are creating it. They are really the artists of the future forest. Every decision they make about what tree to cut and what to leave is something we'll be living with for the next 50 years.

But this has always been the case in proper woodland and forest management in Europe, including and especially in Britain.

Britain was once an island of forests – despite the fact that some wish to claim that the woodland cover of the British Isles was but a small percentage by the beginning of the year 1000 only – and the foresters and woodsmen have always had the best interest of the forest and the woodland in mind. After all it was also what made them money, but never by clear-cutting.

Reusing all that wood

In America in the '80s and '90s, forests were managed for timber and woodcutters went in, took out all the big trees and what was left was burned. What was once piled up and burned needs to be made into wood products.

There has also been a similar management, as regards to thinning in recent decades in Europe, in that most of the thinned timber was simply burned on site. Not so much, I hasten to add, where coppice workers were doing the work of thinning as to them any wood is being looked at as a source of income and this is the way it should be. Nothing, as far as possible, should be wasted.

Through partnerships with local businesses, small diameter trees like those being thinned must be reused for loads of useful applications, including furniture and housewares, fencing, cabinetry, pallets and even prefabricated homes and bridges. And where all else fails there is always firewood and charcoal.

In the USA thinned trees are also used to create oriented strand board (OSB), a popular building material that is also used for furniture and other applications. Wood pieces that are too damaged to reuse for these purposes are made into mulch, sawdust and pellets for wood-burning stoves.

We all have a stake in the future of our forests and our woodlands, but not everybody recognizes it. So, we help people understand the importance of that, but it's not enough just to create a sense of urgency. We want people to feel an understanding of what needs to be done, and provide them with an opportunity to learn.

Personally I have encountered misguided greenies who do not understand nor wish, it would seem, to understand that woods and forests need to be managed to thrive and this is a shame and with some of them even the best intention of enlightening them are, unfortunately, unsuccessful. But, we must continue this effort in the same way as we must manage our forests and woodlands in the proper manner for the benefit of everything and everyone.

© 2013

Forestry Panel backs publicly-owned woods and forests

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

There is a “continuing role” for a national publicly-owed forest estate in England, the Independent Panel on Forestry, an independent, so the name suggests, panel set up in the wake of the Government's sell-off U-turn, has concluded.

In a progress report, the Independent Panel on Forestry says it is developing recommendations that will “increase the benefits generated from all forests in England”.

The Government put on hold a sale of 15% of the forest estate in February amid fury about the wider forestry privatization plans.

Bishop of Liverpool the Right Reverend James Jones, who chairs the panel, said: “Although our panel was born out of fierce debate over the future of the public forest estate, what has become apparent through our work so far is that we must look at the future of all woods and forests, not just the one-fifth managed by the Forestry Commission.

“Through the 42,000 responses to our call for views, the public expressed their passion for forests as a place of recreation, to connect with nature and as a vital source of resources.

“These responses, along with the many people we have met on our visits, have helped inform our report. For now, all of our work, especially in relation to the woods and forests outside of the public forest estate, needs further development in the run up to making recommendations in our final report next year.

“But, as ever, the panel are dedicated to further exploring these emerging themes.”

Widespread opposition to the plans to transfer ownership of public forests, currently managed by the Forestry Commission, to businesses, communities and charities forced the Government into a u-turn on the policy. Instead, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman set up the independent forestry panel to advise ministers on England's woodlands.

Mary Creagh, shadow environment secretary, said: “Labour welcomes this thoughtful report from the Independent Panel on Forestry, which reflects the views of some 40,000 people and their heartfelt concern and affection for England's forests. Our forests are a precious reflection of our national heritage, and will play a pivotal role in the green economy and our low carbon future.”

Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said: “I'd like to thank the Independent Panel for their ongoing hard work in shaping forestry policy in England and look forward to their full report next spring.”

Countryside champions, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, have welcomed the Forestry Panel’s progress report on their vision for the future of England’s forests but emphasize the need for stronger protection for trees in national planning policy.

Emma Marrington, Rural Policy Campaigner for CPRE, said: “We are pleased the Forestry Panel agrees that the benefits of woods and forests are greatly undervalued. The Government were wrong to see Forestry Commission land as just another asset to sell off. This report makes it crystal clear that the benefits provided by the public forest estate offer value for money.”

The final recommendations by the Independent Panel on Forestry, due in April 2012, will come at a vital time for the future of England’s countryside. The final National Planning Policy Framework is expected around the same time and if this is not greatly improved, it is likely to leave much of our countryside as an easy target for development.

Emma Marrington concluded: “The Government must listen to the Forestry Panel’s recommendations and ensure that a secure future if planned for the public forest estate. Our trees, woods and forests need to be more effectively protected, for the benefit of all, for generations to come.”

The way the campaign against the so-called sell-off presented the issue was that companies would buy the woods and forests, clear fell all the trees and then move one. That, however, would never have happened and, yes, I am speaking here with my hat a s professional and commercial forester firmly on my head.

No forestry company would ever even consider doing such a thing as the trees are the future of their business.

The Forestry Commission is not, necessarily, doing the greatest of job in managing (and protecting) the nation's woodlands and forests. Many privately owned and managed woods and forests are in a much healthier state and one that produces a much better return, including for the environment, than do many a Commission forest.

The Forestry Commission was not created, and this must be remembered, to be a custodian of our woods and forests, the majority which are and were then also privately owned and managed. It's task was to produce timber for the wars, especially building timber for a variety of uses including and especially the trenches.

However, what is urgently needed is to bring our woodlands and forests, private, and public, into proper use and production if the country is going to meet a number of targets.

The demand for carbon neutral fuel, in the form of wood, logs and pellets, is growing and traders are forced to source firewood from abroad, from as far away as Poland, Western Russia, the Ukraine, etc. This is not a sustainable way of going about it.

Our woodlands and forests, including the woodlands on Open Spaces and in Parks, could fulfill much if not indeed most of our needs, especially if managed properly by way of rotation coppice.

To get the fact that trees need to be cut down in order to be used as a resource and that it will actually benefit nature and wildlife if this is done in a proper way ever so often is something that seems to be very difficult to get into the heads of many self-proclaimed environmentalists and greenies.

Let's bring out woods and forests back to life and let's use the resource properly and, and this is very important, let's plant more community woods and forests for the purpose of using the wood.

© 2011

Con-Lib government selling off Britain's forests

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The British coalition government between Tories and Whigs is putting forward the framework for legislation to sell off much of the government-owned forests and despite much protests seems to be going ahead with it. Truth is they have to raise money somehow to bring the country back from bankruptcy.

While everyone in the green sector seems to be up in arms about this suggestion I wonder whether it may not actually be a good idea.

Claims and comments such as this one “The government is getting ready for a huge sell-off of our national forests to private firms. This could mean ancient woodlands are chopped down and destroyed. Walkers and endangered animals, like red squirrels and owls, would have to make way for Center Parcs-style holiday villages, golf courses, and logging companies” by 38 Degrees ( http://www.38degrees.org.uk) are not helpful as they more than likely are very misleading.

“We need to stop these plans”, 38 Degrees say, and continue “ancient forests like the Forest of Dean and Sherwood Forest are national treasures - once they’re gone, they are lost forever.”

I am well aware that to many my suggestion is tantamount to treason and betrayal of green principles but allow me to play the Devil's advocate, for a while at least.

The claim of “ancient forests” which always, in the minds of the public conjures up forests never touched by the hand of man and never managed for forest products, etc. are entirely wrong. There are no “ancient” or “untouched” forests and woodlands in Britain or elsewhere in Europe bar one or two in the East of the continent that were so inaccessible that timber extraction was not possible. All other forests and woodlands have been used and managed.

The great forests mentioned by the 38 Degrees group were, once upon a time and that not all that long ago, privately owned or owned by the crown and administered by Agisters and other forest officers and the usage rites were “owned” by the so-called “foresters”, much like “commoners” that had rites to the common of a village.

Originally British forests were the hunting reserves of the crown and thus had special protection. Other forests and woods were owned by the landowners, the Lords and the Lords of the Manor and the Lairds in Scotland. The state has not been the owner of our forests for long.

The Centre Parcs-style holiday villages – oh mt G-D what eyesores – are not necessarily on the horizon and that simply because there is no money for building those and there are no customers either. So let's stop with silly claims and scaremongering.

The management of our forests – the state-owned ones – via the Forestry Commission (most of the British woods and forests are in fact privately owned though most people tend to forget that) – leaves much to be desired, as does that of the majority of our privately owned woodlands and especially of those owned by local authorities and local governments.

The Forestry Commission was not, in fact, established to protect our forests. It was a commercial government operation to ensure that enough wood was available for the use by the military and especially “vital” industry such as props for the coal mines. That was its primary task. The rest just sort of developed later when amenity had greater value than the pit props. You don't need pit props when you haven't got any pits left.

Afforestation was the main reason for the creation of the commission in 1919. Britain had then only 5% of its original forest cover left and the government at that time wanted to create a strategic resource of timber. Since then forest area has more than doubled and the remit of the commission is now much more focused on sustainable forest management and on maximizing public benefits. Establishment of new forests and woodlands has gone out of the window, unfortunately.

The Forestry Commission claims also to be the government body responsible for the regulation of private forestry and claims that felling is generally illegal without first obtaining a license from the Commission. Having worked in forestry, private forestry, for many years this is something rather new to me.

Apparently the Commission claims also to be responsible encouraging new planting and while it is true that the Commission used to provide grants in support of private forests and woodlands, new planting is something that any forestry estate and forest owner who manages his or her forests and woodlands properly would do without the interference of the FC. In the current climate I am sure we shall see this support of grants fall drastically. Not that, to all intents and purposes, it should ever be needed.

So, let's not loose too many tears and sleepless nights over the FC losing a couple of its forests.

As long as the woods are not just clear felled by the buyers for a quick buck – and legislation could prevent that from happening – and are properly managed for future timber and other forest products, which everyone on his or her right mind buying such assets would do, then privatizing many of those forests and woodlands might just be a good idea.

People could band together and buy their own local forests and then manage them and thus much better use could, maybe, made of them than are currently be made by the FC and local authorities.

Thus many proper community woodlands and forests could be created and the forests products could be marketed primarily for local use, which could encourage local industry regeneration.

Personally, I wonder whether the FC itself, which is not a ministerial department but, to all intents and purposes is a Quango, should not be gotten rid off itself.

While, and I am the first to admit that, its research arm is a most valuable one as far as tree diseases and such go the rest of the operations may not be as useful as claimed.

I told you I was going to play the Devil's advocate here...

What we really must get down to is to get the management of our local authority owned woodlands and forests to be put under proper commercial management – somehow managed by the councils – to (1) clean them up and (2) bring in some revenue from the forests products that could be created and (3) by the same way also encouraging the creation of local industries making use of those products. It can be done and must be done, if only to keep the woods and forests in good shape.

Britain's forests and woodlands are in a mess and we need to, urgently, revitalize their uses. In the West Country there are coppice woodlands that, due to pressure from misguided greenies, have not been managed for decades now because those greenies made claims that those woods were ancient woods and must return to their original state.

Unfortunately none of them has a clue about forestry operations and those coppice woodlands are in danger of breaking apart, literally, with the thousand or more years old coppice stools simply falling over and that is the end of it. No more woods at all. Shame there are so many in the green movement who do not want to understand that.

You want woodlands and forests? Make sure you own them and not the state even. If the community and people feel strongly enough there should be ways and means that could make real community woodlands and forests possible. But they then also need to be managed properly.

© 2010

Bringing forests and woodlands “back into production”

by Michael Smith

For far too long have woodlands and forests, especially many of the smaller, privately owned ones, been doing nothing and have not been bringing in the money that they, really, should be able to.

Too many small woods have been also left to their own devices, so to speak, simply because no money could be made, often for lack of understanding as to the marketing of woodland and forest products by their owners.

The problem with leaving woods and forest to their own devices, especially woods and forests in our developed countries is that they are not natural forests or ancient forests and woodlands. They have, more often than not, been planted to be used and often there are or have been coppice woodlands. Coppice that is not being worked for anything loner than but a decade or two is in danger of collapsing and disintegrating; meaning that there will, suddenly be nothing but fallen trees and root stocks that are broken apart. Our woods need to be worked and worked for profit as well, if possible. That does not mean that they have to be exploited.

This bring me to a little subject by way of digression: we will be on track again in a second... however, it is often claimed that is we use less paper we will have less trees and forests cut down. The fact is if we did not have the paper industry and the need for wood pulp many woods and forests that we have today in Europe, for instance, would not exist and many areas would not b e having trees at all.

I know that there are many amongst the environmental activists that think they know better and who claim that if woods and forests would be left to their own devices and if we did not use paper from trees our forests and woodlands would be better but this is not the case. In fact it is a lie and most of them know that too. Why they continue to perpetuate such falsehoods I cannot say but they do do that.

If it would not bee for some of the forest product industries we would have less woods and forests, of that we can be sure, and much more of the land that is currently in wood would be either used for this or that crop – today more than likely for bio-fuel crops – or even be built upon.

Wood is also a bio fuel; in fact the most natural of all bio-fuels. Wood has been used to keep us warm, cook our food, heat the metal in our forges, and so on and so on, for centuries, nay millenniums even, well before coal and oil, and it can save us yet again.

The burning of wood, for instance, releases only the amount of carbon dioxide that the tree has absorbed and converted during its lifetime and probably less even. With the right clean burning technology and all that wood can be more efficient today than coal and oil and wood could even be gasified and vehicles run on it. Then again vehicles be best run on the fuel that old Tin Lizzy Ford designed then to run on in the first place, namely methane gas. Yes, gas from sewerage, for instance. Same as the first electrical power plant was run on as well. But, alas, I once again digressed.

Wood has so many uses that it is amazing that so many woodland owners have no idea what resources they have and how to actually make them pay and enable them to increase their forests' productivity by ploughing back resources into it that came from the woods in the first place. Owning and managing a woodland or forest is a two-way affair and not just a one-way affair of taking only and not giving back and any good woodland owner is a husbandman, a steward of the land and will always plant anew and always replenish the trees.

Coppicing has been a system that has been in use in the British Isles – and other places where suitable trees are about and abound – for the managing of woodlands and forests and it is a system that keeps a woodland nigh on indefinitely productive.

Unfortunately much of the skills of proper coppicing is getting lost and in addition to that too many of the misguided environmentalists have been ranting and raving against the rotation coppice operations.

Proper professional woodland and forest management continuously improves those environments and ecosystems in a way that benefits everyone and everything, and it is such a shame that commercial forestry has such a bad image amongst the environmental lobby.

Without commercial forestry and commercially managed woodlands our planet would be far less green, regardless of what some, who, I am afraid to say, have no real knowledge of the subject b but think that they happen to know everything just because they have read this or that book, think and say, often way to vociferously.

While woodlands and forest might still exist in their ancient form had the hand of man not touched them, in most places of the world woods and forests have been worked my man for many thousand years if more more and here is virtually no forest that has not been worked.

The truth is that the management of woods and forests – and the word forests, by the way, means different things to different countries - is what has, in most cases, preserved woods and forests rather than the opposite, as is, so often, being claimed by the misguided ones in the environmental movement.

Without commercial forestry and woodland management for profit there would be none of those woods and forest in the prime condition that they are in presently. Commercial forestry, at least the true kind of commercial forestry not only extracts timer from the woods and forest; nay it also replants and that in a large scale.

Any professional forester knows that he does not work for the immediate gain and for the present or even a year or ten hence; he knows that he works for the future generations. Most foresters will never see the tree they they plant now or the ten year or so old trees they care for now to grow to maturity. This is for others in the future.

Without that kind of woodland and forest management, however, most woods and forests that there are today would not, as I said already, exist.

Urban forestry too can play a great role and here too the woods and forest could and indeed should be manageable for income. Whether or not then the income is wholly or partly used to replenish is another question but the income can be used to do so. Any forester in his or her right mind would also do just that.

Woods and forests are are source that can and must be managed for sustainable use in that the timber must be cut as when when ready – why else would such woods be managed otherwise. At the same time any such managed woods and forests, whether privately owned or publicly owned, in whichever way, need to have replanting schemes in operation at all times and also, as and where possible, should be expanded.

We need more woods and forests and that not only in the United Kingdom though the British Isles definitely need more woodlands. They are one of the less wooded countries in Europe.

Trees are the lungs of the planet and – while some have claimed otherwise – are what can keep the CO2 balanced to some degree.

So let's plant more trees and properly manage them, for the benefit of the planet as well as for income and, dare I mention it, profit. But then, some will say, he would say that seeing that he comes from the commercial forestry sector.

© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>

Forests back in fashion as weapon to combat climate change

by Michael Smith

The Earth's forests, which are perhaps one of the greatest, if not indeed the greatest, natural defenses against climate change, got somewhat of a boost recently with Britain's Prime Minister and a host of environmental lawyers throwing their support behind plans to protect them and eventually include the forestry sector in carbon markets.

Now who would have thought that the experts suddenly realize what we who have had dealings and have been working in forestry and related sectors for most of our lives have known all the time and those that set up managed forestry have known for centuries, namely that forests are good for the Earth.

A review commissioned by Gordon Brown and led by advisor Johan Eliasch has concluded that deforestation in countries heavily covered by rainforest could be halved in the next 12 years and the world's forestry sector could be carbon neutral – effectively sustainable in the long term – by 2030.

The review looks at the financial mechanisms needed to make this happen and comes down heavily in favour of wealthy industrialized nations offering funding to support forestry in poorer nations and somehow incorporating the carbon sink effect of existing forests into global carbon trading.

In a nutshell, the report says that countries that protect their forests should be rewarded for doing so by the international community.

The specific mechanisms recommended for doing this are slightly more complex.

Mr Eliasch said: “Saving forests is critical for tackling climate change. Without action on deforestation, avoiding the worst impacts of climate change will be next to impossible, and could lead to additional climate change damages of $1 trillion a year by 2100.

“Including the forest sector in a new global deal could reduce the costs of tackling climate change by up to 50% and therefore achieve deeper cuts in emissions, as well as reducing poverty in some of the world's poorest areas and protecting biodiversity.

“Deforestation will continue as long as cutting down and burning trees is more economic than preserving them. Access to finance from carbon markets and other funding initiatives will be essential for supporting forest nations to meet this challenge.”

I wonder whether readers remember that a while ago the papers and the media were full of suggestions that forests actually are bad for the environment. Don't ask me what those experts had been drinking but... Forests are more than carbon neutral; they are carbon sinks, and we need more of them and not just old forests. New planted and commercially managed forests and woodlands have been proven to be as useful as primal forests.

The review has been broadly welcomed in political circles, but environmental NGOs have given it a frostier reception.

Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken said: “Allowing rich countries and businesses to 'offset' their carbon dioxide emissions by buying up huge tracts of forest is riddled with problems and will do little to tackle climate change.

“The industrialised world must rapidly cut its dependency on fossil fuels if we are to prevent catastrophic climate change from taking hold. The Eliasch plan will simply create a smokescreen allowing us to carry on polluting - it's the climate change equivalent of sub-prime mortgages.

“Forests and forest communities urgently require protection. Financial packages are needed - but we must also address the underlying causes of deforestation, such as biofuels, excessive meat consumption and industrial logging.”

We can but agree with the statements by the Friends of the Earth, though I also know that often FoE have a problem with commercial forestry per se and would like to see forests and woodlands remain unmanaged. This is not something that works and is not good for the forests and woodlands either, especially not with those, say, in Europe who have always been managed for the last millennia and if they would be no longer managed they would soon completely fall apart, literally. This is something that I have spoken about as regards to the coppice woodlands in the South of England, for instance.

The carbon offset idea, in my opinion, is a total stupidity anyway and we must get away from this notion that we can pay our way out of polluting the planet by paying, say, Brazil or such, to conserve their forests. I am sorry, but this notion is ludicrous. The developed world cannot be allowed to continue polluting just because they can buy carbon credits from the Third World. This is just not sustainable.

© M Smith (Veshengro), December 2008
<>