11 ELIGIBILITY OF FOREST AREA
11.1 Question 5.17 asked "Do you agree that the area of forest created from 2009 should be eligible for payment?"
11.2 Eighty-seven respondents provided an answer. Of these, 13 said yes and 21 gave positive responses but added a caveat. Around 60% (53 respondents) said no.
11.3 Respondents from the Environment sector were more likely to agree than disagree with this proposal (none of these respondents said they disagreed). However, 6 of the 13 Farming sector respondents disagreed, as did 4 of the 7 Local Authorities and 3 of the 9 respondents from the Livestock / Supply Chain group. Not surprisingly, both of the Forestry respondents agreed.
11.4 Reasons for saying that the area of forest created from 2009 should be eligible for payment included:
- This is consistent with Scottish Government targets to raise woodland cover from 17% to 25% by 2050, and realistic incentives are required in order to meet these targets (8 respondents);
- All land which delivers public good outcomes should be eligible for support through one of the funding streams (7 respondents).
11.5 Reasons for arguing that forest should not be eligible for payment included:
- Forestry should be funded by separate support measures, or there are already a number of grant schemes to encourage tree planting (16 respondents, including 3 from the Farming sector, 2 from the Livestock / Supply Chain group and 2 Local Authorities);
- Agriculture and forestry are two completely different activities, and this is not what agricultural subsidies were created for (8 respondents - 6 Individuals and 2 Local Authorities);
- Concerns were raised about the impact on the tenanted sector, e.g. landlords taking land back from tenants for tree planting (5 respondents - 2 from the Farming sector and 3 Individuals).
11.6 Additional comments included:
- Forest areas could be eligible for payment but this should depend on the type of forest and what it was to be used for, e.g. grazed forest or wooded pasture might qualify but forests managed for commercial timber extraction should not (5 respondents, including 2 from the Environment sector);
- Funding could be provided but not through Pillar 1, or suggestions that this should be done through a dedicated Pillar 2 funding stream (4 respondents).
Summary:
Eighty-seven respondents (58% of the 149 who responded to the consultation) answered Question 5.17, 53 of whom said that the area of forest created from 2009 should not be eligible for payment. Thirteen agreed that it should be eligible, and a further 21 agreed but added a caveat.
Arguments for forest areas being eligible for payment included the need for incentives to meet Scottish Government targets to increase woodland cover (8) and all land which delivers public good outcomes should be eligible for support through one of the funding streams (7).
Reasons for arguing that forest should not be eligible for payment included that forestry should be funded by separate support measures, or there are already a number of grant schemes to encourage tree planting (16) and this is not what agricultural subsidies were created for (8).
Respondents from the Environment sector were more likely to agree than disagree with this proposal. Not surprisingly, both of the Forestry respondents agreed. There was less support for this proposal from the Farming sector, Local Authorities and the Livestock / Supply Chain group.