Some new analysis from us on the where and what of woodland expansion in the UK

A quick thread here for the lazy or time poor...

https://twitter.com/rspbscience/status/1359784739964477442

First, we looked at what type of woodland provides the biggest bang for our climate buck

Comparing 1ha of broadleaves and 1ha of Sitka over 100 years, we found that permanent, native woodland sequesters and stores more carbon in the long term

Better for nature, and climate too

We also looked at where trees could go - note *could* not should

We excluded certain areas - there’s a methods in the story map - and then divided the areas of potential woodland opportunity into higher (red) & lower (blue) risk for climate based on soil type

There’s potentially enough land to meet @theCCCuk targets, but it’s tight, especially in Wales and Scotland, if we assume much of the higher risk land is in reality off limits once you’ve got your boots on the ground

But we know that a lot of the pressure for new woodlands is focused on these higher risk soils, especially in the south of Scotland & north of England

These often surround deep peat (orange) - now a no go for trees - as this where a lot of forestry went in the past (dark green)

We’re in danger of planting new non-native forests on carbon rich soils by default, just because this is where the existing forests and associated infrastructure are, and where the land is cheap

That doesn’t stack up for nature or climate change, based on this new analysis

So we need to be cannier about where new trees could go to meet climate targets, and biodiversity goals

We can have more timber production (a domestic hardwood industry anyone?) but it needs to be as part of a better, more strategic approach in all four nations of the UK

END