A newly published report by the prestigious Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) has called for an end to tax breaks on coniferous commercial tree planting in Scotland which ‘distort the market’.

The report also covers the environmental and social impacts of public subsidies for the forestry sector.

However, one senior industry figure said the move would be a devastating blow to the industry and declared the report to be ‘already out of date’.

The RSE report makes a series of recommendations for how public financial support for tree planting in Scotland can be reorganised to better serve Scotland’s people, environment, forestry industry, and the public purse.

Key points in the document include:

• Ending subsidies for coniferous commercial tree planting from the Scottish Government

• Using the money saved to plant trees for long term carbon sequestration, biodiversity and public benefit

• The UK Government should report on the total cost of tax relief for woodlands

• Scottish Forestry should require planting schemes to include native planting and regeneration along watercourses

• Scottish Forestry should require schemes to consider how the spread of invasive tree seed can be prevented

• Scottish Forestry should increase capacity for independent scrutiny of planting applications

Professor Ian Wall who chaired the group that compiled the report said: “The health of the population, and the health of the planet, is reliant on a robust, biologically diverse environment.

“The role of trees – the right trees in the right place – in improving biodiversity, carbon-capture, and wellbeing in both urban and rural environments cannot be overstated.

“That is why the main recommendation of the report, is that subsidies for commercial forestry, which are poorer at delivering these needs should be redirected to long term, mixed native tree planting and other benefits.”

The report concludes that commercial conifer forestry, which benefits from 100% tax relief, no longer needs public subsidies that distort the market, reflected in the rapid increase in the price of land for tree planting, and that the money should be redirected to maximise the common good.

Jon Lambert, partner of Goldcrest Land and Forestry, said: “I am appalled and greatly concerned to see the outcome of this report. As a chartered surveyor who has been involved in the creation of forests, their management and the sale and purchase of both land and existing forestry for several decades, I believe this would be a devastating blow to the industry.

“It is clear that all government departments are financially stretched and spending money wisely and prudently is of course of paramount importance. However, it is a well-documented fact that the UK imports 81% of its commercial timber, of which 75% is required for housing construction.

“There is an urgent need to create more timber but there is a disconnect between the public desire for wood-based products and the public perception of commercial plantations.

“I have had several conversations with investors keen to purchase land for the creation of commercial forestry and timber production in the last couple of months. However, they have made it clear that it appears Scotland no longer wants this business and they are now only looking for opportunities in England and Wales.

“The statement, ‘the right tree in the right place’, is absolutely correct but that does not mean there is no place for commercial plantations. There are many areas in Scotland which would be greatly enhanced by both attractive broadleaves and commercial conifers. It is about balancing various needs.

“We are very good at planting broadleaves. However, looking after them is extremely expensive and time and time again we see examples of broadleaf areas in Scotland which have turned into scrubland. Yes, we need financial help to support the management of broadleaf forests but we also need considerable financial support to ensure a healthy and robust timber industry.

He added: “The report is already out of date. It talks about escalating land prices because of tree planting but the reality is that the hill land which is suitable for tree planting is 30% cheaper now that it was 18 months ago. The report also states that commercial forest plantations tend to be monocultures which simply is not true. When planting, we are only allowed a maximum of 65% of any one species.”