LCDC has an obligation to the Forestry Commission to replant the woodland by June, 2023, and in order to meet this deadline, we need a species layout plan, covering an area of about 25 hectares. The plan must be finalised as soon as possible and submitted for approval by the Highlands & Islands Forestry Conservancy. We will also need a woodland plan so that Scottish Forestry can see the rationale for the changes since the licence was granted. Once approved, we can then apply to the Scottish Government for £550 per hectare to assist with the costs of replanting.
What the woodland looks like now – after felling.
Before replanting starts, we need to fence the woodland to keep out the deer. Work on this will start in late March, and we’ve already raised enough funds to cover the £28,000-£30,000 costs. In addition, volunteers including local school students have also invested their time in the project to date, planting 1,200 broadleaf saplings and 400 hedgerow plants.
There are two basic options for replanting the woodland: commercial replanting (mainly sitka spruce, allowing for some areas of natural regeneration) OR native woodland (mainly birch). Both options have their pros and cons (described below) but for various reasons, it would be difficult to compromise between the two (see below). Both would help with carbon sequestration and creation of new habitats for wildlife, to differing extents.
No matter what option is chosen, the community should have its say in the final decision. This will require an Open Meeting and consultation with members.
Option 1
Conifers – commercial. We already have a species layout plan, with sitka spruce the dominant species, plus Scots pine. This would be a future store of timber and wood fuel. In addition, a small percentage of broadleaves would be planted near the watercourses (riparian) to encourage natural regeneration and provide habitat corridors for wildlife.
Option 2
Native woodland – ecology/amenity. Mainly birch would be planted, mixed with other broadleaves such as rowan, hazel, hawthorn, aspen and oak, as well as willow. In order to provide canopy shelter, a small percentage of spruce could be introduced in areas where future projects such as cabins or huts may be sited.
The existing native Scots pine will be kept for regeneration with possibly more planted, to create a more attractive environment and create new habitats for wildlife such as red squirrels, as well as provide future wood fuel for local consumption.
Pros and cons
1. High-density conifers (2,600-3,000 per hectare)
Pros:
Future source of timber income when harvested.
Future wood fuel would generate long-term revenue and meet local demand.
Create employment/business – during start-up, ongoing and long-term when harvesting starts.
The woodland could be used for teaching – e.g. forestry skills.
As machinery would have to go in, the required infrastructure could be incorporated – e.g. path network. This could be combined with operational tracks to make woodland management easier.
Cons:
High initial investment – infrastructure, drainage, ground preparation, access tracks.
Ongoing management costs – expert advice and monitoring.
Damage to the ecosystem caused by the use of heavy machinery.
Employment or business creation would show no return until harvesting starts, and thus would need funding until then.
Clear-fell system looks like a battlefield for several years after felling and would not be attractive to visitors or possible paying cabin/hutting customers.
2. Low-density broadleaves (1,600 per hectare)
Pros:
Lower start-up costs: Less ground preparation and management, reduced infrastructure, lower up-front investment and less forestry expertise needed.
Would create a more pleasant environment for cabins or huts – more open and light. Would improve landscape.
Contribution to biodiversity and a long-term woodland ecosystem. This could further include projects like red squirrel re-introduction which would further enhance local visitor experience and tourism. Creation of new visitor attraction – walkers (paths could be created over time), accommodation (pods/cabins/huts), teaching aid and wood fuel for local consumption. Social benefits – outdoor learning, health and well-being, by providing welcoming and well-managed woodlands.
It is a core aim of the national biodiversity action plan to significantly increase the area of native woodland, creating opportunities for more people to see, enjoy and learn about wildlife.
Cons: The value of the timber crop would be significantly reduced.
What the woodland could look like ten years from now.
Compromise?
If we replanted a mixture of conifers and native woodland, the pros and cons may cancel out each other. Conifers are more valuable the greater the area used because of the economies of scale Half the area would generate significantly less than half the revenues, because of the initial infrastructure costs. In addition, we would need the same degree of expert input to manage the woodland, regardless of the size of the area used for commercial purposes. The attraction value of a native woodland would also be diminished by sitting alongside a commercial operation. It could also be argued that the simpler, the better.
This suggests that we need to make a simple choice between commercial and native woodland, although it may be beneficial to plant a small percentage of low density conifers to provide shelter for birds and mammals in winter, also adding economic value by providing timber in areas earmarked for future projects such as woodland huts, cabins or pods.
So now it’s up to members to express their views and make the final decision.
Did you know? Forestry and timber processing in Scotland is worth a total of about £771 million a year, while £183 million a year comes from forest tourism and recreation.
Lochcarron Community Development Company 