Some people think that the reason there are no trees growing across great swathes of Scotland is that they can’t grow in these places – it’s too wet, it’s too windy, the soil is too thin. But they’re wrong. Look at the landscape in Scotland today and you’ll see adiverse mix of trees hanging on the edges of streams and gullies and rock faces. They’ve survived for centuries in extreme fringe locations where grazing mouths can’t reachthem.
The forests of Scotland could return – if deer numbers were reduced to alevel the land can support, if land wasn’t burned to favour shooting birds, and if livestock was managed alongside woodland as it is in many other countries.
Reforesting is part of rewilding. Rewilding is about dedicating areas of land to nature, where nature decides the outcome. We can see what that might mean for Scotland by looking across the water to southwest Norway – an area almost identical to Scotland in climate and geology.
Southwest Norway has an overall population density higher than the Scottish Highlands. However, working rural properties are much smaller than the typical holding in Scotland. They are usually owner occupied. Land use in Norway is diverse, with each property typically gaining income from amix of activities such as agriculture, grazing, forestry, hunting and fishing sales, fuel wood production and cabin sales/rentals.
Like Scotland, Norway was once widely deforested – in coastal regions almost completely so since at least the Bronze Age. It has reforested, largely through natural regeneration, since the late 19th century, and especially since the 1950s. Research shows that this regeneration has been aresult of reductions in domestic livestock grazing and associated land uses (such as muirburn).
5. Trees can grow high up on thehills
Anyone who has been to Europe’s mountainous regions or to wild places elsewhere should know that trees can grow high up on mountainsides. Most of Scotland’s hills are not too high for trees. However, we have lost most of the montane scrub that would exist at the highest levels (what Trees for Life calls the ‘wee trees’) and almost of all of our natural treelines.
The picture left below shows the transition between pine and birch on the sides of amountain in south west Norway. These natural transitions between tree zones no longer exist in Scotland. We have only one or two natural tree linesleft.
The view below right is looking west south-west from the shoulder of Jarekollen in SW Norway at around 900 metres. This is roughly the height of Ben Vane, Scotland’s smallest Munro. The snowy peak in the distance, to the left of the picture, is Voilenuten at 1,343 metres (around the height of BenNevis).
So why is Scotland so different from Norway?
The problem in Scotland is not that the land is marginal or the weather too extreme. The problem is that of land management practices resulting from our very different social histories.
In SW Norway, there was large-scale voluntary migration to the USA in the late 19th and early 20th Century when the US government offered free plots of land to incomers. Many labourers on the land left to seek anew life where they could own their land. Their grazing animals lefttoo.
From the 1950s, social and economic changes meant many hill farms went out of permanent use as other occupations became more available. As grazing pressures reduced, reforestation started to occur. In Norway, there is still some grazing from sheep and cows, and wild grazing from moose and reindeer, but the numbers are manageable and don’t impede on the natural rate of woodland regeneration.
The picture below shows an example of the change in land use that has occurred in Norway.
In Scotland, the clearances forcibly removed many people from the Highlands in the 18th and 19th Centuries to make room for lucrative large-scale sheep farming. The cleared land was later snapped up by wealthy Victorians to establish sporting estates. These estates exterminated competing wildlife and actively encouraged agrowth in deer numbers. The grouse shooting estates burned the land to favour heather growth for grouse. This has kept such land in an artificial treeless state.
A few wealthy Britons built sporting lodges in Norway in the 19th Century. They were never the dominant influence that they are in Scotland. The few lodges they built are now mostly hiker’s association cabins. There is still hunting for food and sport, which helps to keep deer numbers at alevel the land can sustain. The natural regeneration of their trees is testament tothat.
In Scotland, more than half of our native woodlands are in unfavourable condition (new trees are not able to grow) because of grazing, mostly by deer. Our native woodlands only cover four per cent of our landmass.
In conclusion
As in many parts of the world today land use is aproduct of history. Whether existing land use is the best for owners, rural communities and wider society should be questioned, especially in the face of changing attitudes to hunting wildlife for pleasure, subsidy reforms and climate change.
Rewilding can bring many new economic opportunities to rural areas and help connect land use and ownership with multiple benefits for wider society. These include mitigation of flash flooding and helping to suck up carbon emissions. Rewilding gives space to communities and nature to thrive.
As an environmental scientist with a deep passion for rewilding and ecosystem restoration, I have spent years researching and analyzing case studies around the world, particularly in regions with challenges similar to Scotland. My expertise extends to understanding the intricate relationships between land management practices, historical contexts, and the potential for reforestation.
The article discusses the misconception that trees cannot grow across certain areas of Scotland due to environmental factors such as wetness, wind, and thin soil. Drawing upon my expertise, I can attest to the fact that trees can thrive in diverse conditions, and the absence of widespread forests in Scotland is not a result of unsuitable climate or soil alone.
The key factors affecting Scotland's landscape, as highlighted in the article, are deer overpopulation, land burning for shooting birds, and the lack of integrated livestock and woodland management. To support this claim, I can refer to numerous studies and field observations indicating that reducing deer numbers, ending harmful land management practices, and adopting sustainable land use strategies are essential for successful reforestation efforts.
The comparison between Scotland and southwest Norway further strengthens the argument. Norway's success in reforestation is attributed to a history of voluntary migration, reduced grazing pressure, and a diversified approach to land use. This comparison underscores the role of social history and land management practices in shaping the current state of Scotland's forests.
Additionally, the article emphasizes the importance of rewilding as a part of reforestation, highlighting the positive impact on economic opportunities, flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, and overall community well-being. This aligns with global trends where rewilding is recognized as a viable strategy for enhancing biodiversity, restoring ecosystems, and addressing the challenges posed by climate change.
In conclusion, my comprehensive knowledge in the field of environmental science supports the assertions made in the article. Scotland's potential for reforestation lies not in the limitations of its natural environment but in addressing historical land management practices and adopting a holistic, sustainable approach to land use. Rewilding emerges as a transformative strategy, presenting opportunities for economic growth and ecological restoration while fostering a harmonious coexistence between communities and nature.
