By Stephen Le Quesne
PLANTING trees and creating woodlands seems to be the one thing to do when it comes to conservation.
It is easy to do, easy to engage with and easy to understand, but are these woodlands really woodlands? And why don’t we let nature do it instead?
A recent social-media post regarding tree planting has provided the spark for this column. Firstly, a note. While I am going to name the organisations involved, that does not mean that I do not support them. In fact, the opposite is true. The motto of what I am about to write is: ‘Just because you can plant a tree does not mean you should plant a tree.’
The post and news story in question is about the Tiny Forest Project that is a focus of Earthwatch Europe and is being championed in the Island by Jersey Trees for Life.
Recently, assistance has been needed to clear away the vegetation from the base of the trees, which is typically seen in environmental circles as maintenance work, to help the trees. But why do we do this?
Important grasses and flowers create a cooler microclimate for the trees, provide habitat and cover for mammals and insects as well as increasing the biodiversity of the area. Is it an example of doing something one way because that has always been the way it has been done?
The name of the project is frustrating as well because, technically, the areas concerned are not forests. While this is nit-picking and focusing on something small, as we lose our connection to nature with ‘shifting baseline syndrome’ and ‘nature deficit disorder’ becoming more apparent, the language we use becomes more important.
We need to be accurate and detailed when we talk about nature and its recovery. The issue here is that calling the project ‘tiny plantations’ would not be useful or helpful, especially in relation to marketing and promotion.
Following on from this, I also want to touch upon the Mourier Valley Woodland planting project by the National Trust for Jersey, where 6,000 trees have been planted on eight hectares (20 acres) of land. Native tree species, such as common oak, silver birch and wild cherry, have been planted.
This all sounds great and incredibly positive but is it really a woodland? Could this also be seen as forcing a type of habitat onto an area of land? Maybe, maybe not, as these trees have been planted next to an existing woodland, but I would also put forward the opinion that a plantation has been created, and it may or may not become a woodland. But why do I say this?
A habitat, whether it is a coastal reef, rainforest or woodland is more than just the dominant vegetation that lives there. It is about the deep ecological links, the food webs, the relationships between the trees, flowers and animals, their interactions and how they feed back to one another.
When you are planting trees to create a ‘forest’ or ‘woodland’, you have none of these at the beginning; you are just hoping that they will form over time. However, when habitats, including woodlands, naturally regenerate, it is these interactions which create the trees, the vegetation and the look of the landscape, not the other way round. One method is nature-focused, the other is human-focused.
Naturally regenerative woodlands are the best way of creating new woodlands for wildlife and for expanding current areas. It is cheaper than planting trees, and trees established by natural methods are often better adapted and suited to local weather conditions.
Regenerating woodlands by natural means can be seen as being a method of ‘rewilding’, where you are restoring habitats and/or expanding existing ones by letting nature take control. This may involve introducing previously extinct species to help engineer the landscape and to fill in the pieces of the ecological jigsaw which, I guess, may be the main sticking point when we talk about the subject in Jersey.
Regenerating woodlands rather than planting trees is a more complex process to work on but its benefits are greater. Woodlands that are created by natural regeneration are more complex, have greater biodiversity, have improved soil structure and are more climate-resilient. Initial evidence also suggests that they take in more carbon, which is one of the main reasons for these projects.
Rewilding is currently a hot topic within conservation circles, bringing with it a wide range of opinions and attitudes.
Unfortunately, there are more politics involved, which may dissuade an already exhausted environmental movement that is struggling to make an impact with biodiversity loss.
What I would like to see in the not-too-distant future is the government, parishes and environmental organisations working together to identify where we can expand woodlands through natural regeneration. We also need to have the possibly heated discussion about how rewilding practices can be adapted and used in Jersey.
-
Stephen Le Quesne is a naturalist, conservationist, forest school leader and nature connection advocate.
