Britain is living with uncertainty – but there are factors at play which indicate outcome is less crucial for this sector

It seems anything may be possible with the UK’S departure from the EU.

Is it to be a “soft” or “hard” deal, no deal at all, a further extended transition period to account for negotiations which continue to the wire, another referendum, or will we leave at all?

With this level of uncertainty, predicting the Brexit effect on forestry in Scotland could be something of a lottery, but there are factors at play for this part of our rural economy which might make the eventual Brexit outcome less critical for it than others.

There has been long-term and widespread dissatisfaction with the Common Agricultural Policy and general agreement that rural support mechanisms will change post EU.

Our governments have given reassurances that existing funding levels will be met until 2022. Currently over £600 million is paid in annual agricultural subsidy to Scottish businesses and a further £65m to helping support private sector forestry. Most of the forestry money is targeted on building up the resource – not on supporting existing businesses.

Future subsidy payments, as Michael Gove has said, “must be earned”, and this is where growing the size of our woodland resource starts ticking lots of boxes.

In tandem with reducing carbon emissions, planting more trees is probably the most effective and deliverable method of reducing atmospheric CO2, thus mitigating the effects of climate change.

Forestry provides significant, relatively well-paid employment opportunities which do not require high levels of yearly public funding to maintain them, and the long-term prospects for timber markets remain rosy.

For these and other reasons UK governments – Holyrood in particular – are keen to encourage an increase in woodland cover.

Although the grant aiding of new planting comes at an admittedly high cost per hectare (to plant 15,000 ha at current average rates would cost in the region of £70m), this should be considered in the context of overall landbased payments.

We need to get away from the historic silo mentality which has clouded the debate on sensible land use. What is right for the land and the rural economy is the important issue, not the agriculture versus forestry versus grouse versus deer, etc, approach which we have laboured under for too long.

Timber is traded worldwide, with low or no tariffs and there seems no reason why this would change. The UK imports around 80% of its needs, so there is no chance of our ever flooding the domestic market by growing more at home and the macro economic prospects for increasing timber prices are excellent.

Meeting government planting targets will require a streamlining of the approvals system – not a slackening of the rules and guidelines developed over the last 30 years, but an attitude shift towards being in favour of new woodland creation rather than finding ways to prevent it.

Good land use dictates that the best quality farmland and environmentally sensitive high hills will not become woodland, so it is the “squeezed middle” of grades 3.2 to 6.1 which are likely to see most planting activity.

Given the existing model of upland grazing simply would not survive without high levels of annual subsidy – the potential impact of planting at the required level to reach Holyrood’s targets would be significant but not catastrophic. The opportunities for hill farmers to diversify into forestry are immense and although this won’t work for all, it must be a sensible consideration for rural businesses.

Upland land values, where tree planting potential exists, are bolstered by demand from forestry investors and if support for agriculture reduces this may lead to an increase in land availability which, if coupled with a streamlined approvals process, could reduce land values. In theory, new woodland creation might take place with reduced levels of grant input.

A more continental style of “community woodland”, where forests are recognised as valued sources of employment and income through the active management of these sites for timber, might also be encouraged and as community empowerment grows and alternative funding sources such as windfarms come online, this is an opportunity.

Brexit’s impact on forestry should be less than that on many other countryside businesses, with government commitment and currency fluctuations having greater potential impacts. Arguably it may be positive for forestry if looked at in isolation, operating as it does in a largely tariff and subsidy free global timber market where the macro economic prospects are bright and we have the land, climate and people to do it well.

If such a thing as the Brexit premium exists in the rural context, the opportunity should be grasped to invest in the future, not merely maintain the status quo. Forestry has a big role to play in that future.