Less than three months ago, I drew attention (in “Making The News”i) to what seems to me to be an increasing tendency for organisations to generate a “news story” by the simple expedient of issuing a press release, which will be picked up by the mainstream media. If the press release has a climate change angle, then so much the better – the likes of the Guardian and the BBC will happily run with it, by giving it a sensationalist headline and turning it into a major story, possibly in a prominent position on their website.
This is what happened regarding Storm Arwen, although it seems to have taken the BBC quite a few weeks to realise that there was potential in a press release to turn it into a story of climate alarmism. On 14th December 2021, Scottish Forestry issued a press releaseii with a fairly prosaic heading – “Forest industries work together to recover from Storm Arwen”. Maybe it was the lack of a sensationalist headline that left it languishing in an inbox for a while, but eventually somebody at the BBC must have read it and grasped the opportunity it offered. As it turned out, Scottish Forestry’s press release contained the sort of news that the BBC can work with:
Meetings have already taken place between the organisations to start planning the recovery of at least 4,000 hectares of woodland that have been affected by the storm.
Gold dust! Even better, the Notes To News Editors at the foot of the press release advises that:
4,000 ha is roughly equivalent to 8 million trees.
And so a BBC headline was born:
More than eight million trees lost this winter in the UK
The articleiii written under that headline is rather more dramatic than the press release that spawned it, and it had a gestation period of a couple of months, finally appearing on the BBC website on 16th February 2022. Perhaps it took two months to find information and track down people who would offer up useful quotes. The Scottish Forestry press release included the obligatory obeisance to climate change in the form of a quote from Scottish Environment Minister Màiri McAllan:
Storm Arwen provided a salutary lesson of the power of nature and the challenge of climate change. Our people suffered and so, too, did our natural environment.
Other than that, however, the press release was understated and factual, a report on the co-operation between Scottish Forestry, Confor (the trade body for forestry and wood-using companies) and FLS (Forestry and Land Scotland). It also talked about woodland managers being able to use satellite data for the first time, to obtain understanding of where the worst damage had occurred without the need for potentially dangerous site visits. Basically, the press release was less about climate change and more about blowing Scottish Forestry’s trumpet (possibly with justification) for the calm and efficient way in which it, together with others, was dealing with the situation:
Action to fast track and simplify the paperwork around Felling Permissions and Forest Management Plans has been undertaken to help woodland managers tackle trees that were affected by windblow.
FLS began discussions with its timber customers straight after Storm Arwen hit to determine market availability, volume requirements and species demand. The agency, which manages the national forests, is also compiling more detailed information on areas, volumes, species and damage types in order to prioritise areas for harvesting and sale.
FLS has considerable experience in dealing with similar challenges and its long standing customer partnerships will provide strong support and assistance in repairing the damage caused by the storm.
Most of the trees that have been flattened will be removed over the next year and sent to wood processors across Scotland. In time, the forests will be replanted.
However, I suppose that’s not much of a story. This is a story (an untold one, apparently, until the BBC got its hands on it):
It is the untold story of the winter storms. More than eight million trees have been brought down and many are now threatened by another two named storms bearing down on Britain.
Forest managers warn that already “catastrophic” damage will be made worse by Storms Dudley and Eunice.
There are warnings that the heating climate is making our weather more severe and unpredictable, and that management and planting strategies must adapt more quickly.
The BBC also wrote:
After Storm Arwen in November, 4,000 hectares of woodland were blown down – estimated to be eight million trees.
However, that is not exactly true (where are the BBC Disinformation Correspondents when you need them?).
In Notes to News Editors, Scottish Forestry say this at the end of the press release:
The 4,000 ha also includes trees that are still standing adjacent to windblown areas but will need to be felled because they are now more vulnerable as their root systems have been weakened.
4,000 ha is roughly equivalent to 8 million trees.
So the claim that “4,000 hectares of woodland were blown down – estimated to be eight million trees” is an exaggeration. We don’t know from the press release just how many trees were blown down, but it wasn’t 4,000 hectares worth (estimated to be 8 million). Instead, 8 million is the total number of trees estimated to be affected, as an unspecified number needed to be felled because they have been rendered more vulnerable due to the loss of adjacent trees that were blown down.
In a story of this nature, context is also important. Whoever was responsible at Scottish Forestry for the press release, was all too aware of that. So much so that they went out of their way to ensure that the apparently huge number of 8 million trees affected, directly or indirectly, by the storm should be viewed in proportion to some salient statistics. Once more, Notes to News Editors tells us something informative:
Scotland creates around 11,000 hectares of new woodland each year – that’s around 22 million new trees. Added to that, around 40 million trees are planted every year to simply restock areas of woodland that are harvested.
Putting it into context, 8 million trees may have been affected from Storm Arwen but around 62 million trees in total are planted every year. Scotland’s forests and woodlands cover around 1.45 million hectares – that’s around 2.9 billion trees.”
Funnily enough, the BBC forgot to mention that. And, despite the sensationalist headline, it’s not all bad news from the BBC (but the good news is saved until the end of the article, which many casual surfers won’t read):
However, the keepers of the woods do point out that it’s not all bad. Mr Tanner picks at the earth-clogged roots of a fallen tree.
“Look at this gap, it’s ideal for a wren to nest. There is hope for the woods because there is natural regeneration. Over there we’ve got some hazel coming through, a bit of ash.”
Many of the felled trees can be sold for timber – although industry experts do say wind-blown trees are often harder to recover and tend to fetch a lower price. Some deadfall will be allowed to rot, creating new habitat. Different species can be planted in the gaps the fallen trees have left to create more diversity.
Mr Archer says that it’s vital to keep planting trees – even though they can blow down.
Alert readers will have spotted that the BBC headline was to the effect that “More than eight million trees [were] lost this winter in the UK”. Of course, the Scottish Forestry press release which led to the BBC producing the article (and which was linked to by the BBC during the course of its article) referred only to trees lost in Scotland. So what’s the UK angle? Well, the beginning of the article is taken up with interviews of forestry workers in, and photographs from, Cumbria. And yet the article nowhere mentions the number of trees affected by Storm Arwen in England (and doesn’t mention Wales or Northern Ireland at all). The most that the BBC came up with was:
Since then [i.e. since Storm Arwen], Malik and Corrie have struck and the damage is now estimated to be 7,000 hectares – the equivalent of around 10,000 football pitches.
The source of that claim isn’t stated, nor is a number put on the trees thus affected. Perhaps the BBC reporter had as much difficulty as I have had in finding comparable information for the rest of the UK. What I did find readily enough, however, is an online leafletiv with this title: “Forestry Commission Key Performance Indicators Headline Performance Update 31 December 2021”.
This little leaflet provides some very useful further context. From it we learn:
The area of woodland in England is 1,320 thousand hectares at 31 March 2021. The March 2021 figure is an increase of 2 thousand hectares on the previous year, and the total is 10.1% of the land area of England.
Add that to the Scottish numbers (and add them to the Welsh and Northern Irish numbers too, if you can find them). The leaflet also tells us that woodland coverage in England was at its lowest around the start of the First World War, and has broadly doubled in a little over 100 years from a low of 5%. If you double the number of trees then, all things being equal, you’ll probably double the number of trees affected by storms. And as we all know, tree-planting is ongoing:
An area of 136 hectares of new planting of woodland was reported in the third quarter of 2021-22 bringing the year-to-date total to 992 hectares (after rounding).
Add that to the Scottish numbers, and dramatic though the BBC headline may have seemed, in context it’s barely a story at all. Certainly not one to justify all the hand-wringing about climate change.
The BBC story contains a factual inaccuracy which goes to the heart of it. It also lacks context. To that extent, I think it’s fair to categorise it as disinformation.
If trees are blown down, is the land still a forest?
Not a trivial question, ecologically squeaking. And if the “area” of forest in England has gone up 2000 ha – how? By planting knee-high trees and counting them as forest? Or by some other magical accounting?
Plantations tend to blow down in high winds, but “forests” tend to survive pretty well owing to the varied age structure of the trees.
Regular readers will know that I regard tree planting as dumb. There is no need to replant these plantations. Allow volunteers to regrow, and you end up with a nice open forest with an uneven age structure: a forest. If they are being planted for subsequent harvest, that is another matter – but it has nothing to do with conservation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
talking about “squeaking” is that the sound a tree makes when it falls ?
more to the point for tree/wind adaption, how deep are the roots/taproot of The Scottish Forestry trees ?
I remember seeing tv pics where downed trees seemed to have no deep root system. is that normal ?
“If trees are blown down, is the land still a forest?”
Maybe, “forest” was originally somewhere that was set aside for the king to hunt in, rather than a place with a lot of trees.
“There is no need to replant these plantations.”
“Allow volunteers to regrow, and you end up with a nice open forest with an uneven age structure: a forest.”
I’m not sure about this. I think open forest would need browsing animals. I used to know a young natural wood. It was on the side of a valley on some old mine workings. All the trees seemed to be about the same age and close together, and while people had carved paths through it there was a heavy underbrush of brambles and holly.
hey Jit & Bill – bringing back memories.
up in Scotland when I has young we had a big tree in the last natural wood to us.
many hours having fun on the swing we made hanging from it’s main branch.
There was more I could have included in the article, and the roots point is one of those things. Certainly I too have observed that many fallen trees locally have very thin roots, having grown in thin soil on rock beds. I have read lots about making sure the right trees are planted in the right places, but inevitably, if cash incentives are being thrown about by the state for planting, then there’s every chance the wrong trees will be planted in the wrong places.
The main thing that surprised me about my visit to the Forestry Commission website was just how much of it is devoted to information about funding for tree-planting. As ever, “green” policies see the rich getting richer, at the expense of us all.
With no context, 8 million trees may sounds like a lot.
However for perspective, let’s not forget that a response to a Freedom of Information request revealed that by Jan 2020:
“Specifically data covering renewable developments on Scotland’s national forests and lands, which is managed on behalf of Scottish Ministers by Forestry and Land Scotland.
The area of felled trees in hectares, from 2000 (the date when the first scheme was developed, is 6,994 hectares. Based on the average number of trees per hectare, of 2000, this gives an estimated total of 13.9M.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many thanks for that interesting link, and astonishing piece of information. The answer may not seem to be of great significance unless the context is known(!), but that reference to “data covering renewable developments on Scotland’s national forests and lands” was in response to a FOI request which specifically asked:
“a) the number of trees felled for all onshore wind farm development in Scotland to date.
b) the area of felled trees, in hectares, for all onshore wind farm development in Scotland to date.
With the dates clarified to be 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2019.”
Admittedly it covers 25 years, not a single winter or a single storm, but the point is that the Scottish government was admitting (or seeming to admit) that in Scotland alone, 13.9M trees had been felled to make room for wind farms. More than 6 years have gone by since then, 6 years when wind farm development has rapidly intensified. Good ness knows what the total number of trees felled to make room for wind turbines in Scotland would be shown to be if that request was updated. 15 million? 20 million?
Still, not a huge number in the context of the 2.9 billion trees in Scotland. Nevertheless, if the BBC can get excited about “8 million trees” (though as I hope I’ve shown, they got the number wrong) being felled by a single storm, why can’t they get excited about greater numbers of trees being felled to make room for wind turbines? And it makes something of a mockery of the claim that wind farms are green.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What you are highlighting here is just poor journalism and, what is more, journalists know that it is poor journalism. Take, for example, the list of pitfalls identified in the following advisory article, “How to correctly report numbers in the news”:
You will note that the first pitfall on the list is:
“1. Ask yourself ‘is it a big number?’
Michael Blastland says the ‘simplest error is just to fail to ask yourself whether the number you are looking at really tells you what you think it tells you’.
‘The most basic of these is to look at a number with a load of zeros on the end and assume that it’s a big number. Asking yourself if it is that big a number is usually enough to start thinking about the kind of context that would tell you if it is large relative to the population or the problem that you are discussing. Big numbers are only big if you understand the context’.”
If this is a common enough pitfall that journalists have to publish warnings for the benefit of fellow journalists, you have to wonder if journalists can be trusted with numbers at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, thank you for that enjoyable link.
Given that the press release leading to the BBC article anticipated that the “8 million trees” bit might be taken out of context, so that those drafting the press release went out of their way to provide valuable and important context, in “notes to editors” at the end of the press release, it looks like poor journalism to me. Or, more predictably, a story written in such a way as to deliberately magnify the “climate crisis” angle.
I might have added that the “climate crisis” angle is patently rubbish for another reason:
“The Great Storm of 1987”
“…About 15 million trees were blown down….”.
And 35 years ago there were rather fewer trees to blow down in the UK.
I still can’t find definitive figures for how much woodland there is in Northern Ireland, but today we get this:
“Tree planting ‘must triple to hit environment aims'”
“Tree planting in Northern Ireland needs to at least triple to meet official targets, according to a UK forestry industry body.
Confor has called on any new administration to prioritise an updated forestry strategy.
This should include incentives and targets to boost wood production and support jobs, as well as help reach net zero.
The Department for Agriculture said it was committed to planting more trees.
Confor chief executive Stuart Goodall said growing wood locally can cut emissions…
…It is two years since the Agriculture Minister Edwin Poots announced a target of planting 18 million trees by 2030.
That requires an average of 900 hectares a year to be planted.
But figures show just 200 to 300 hectares are currently being afforested each year….”
Should have added this quote from the article:
“A Department of Agriculture spokesman said: “The minister remains completely committed to increasing forest cover in Northern Ireland in line with our long-term forestry strategy, to achieve 12% cover by 2050 and any suggestion otherwise is misleading.”
Can’t they spell conifer in Northern Ireland?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“UK to miss tree planting target, trade body warns”
“The government has ‘zero chance’ of reaching its tree planting targets, the UK’s forestry trade body has said.
The UK government pledged in 2019 to reach 30,000 hectares (115 sq miles) of new planting by the end of 2024.
During the financial year spanning 2021/2022 just under 14,000 hectares (54 sq miles) were planted.
The target of 30,000 hectares is equivalent to between 90 million and 120 million trees per year, depending on the density of the planting.
The Confederation of Forest Industries (Confor), which represents 1,500 UK forestry businesses, said in a statement there was “zero chance” of the government fulfilling that pledge.”
1. Storm Arwen and the scary BBC headline generated by it, is put well and truly into context by the numbers quoted in this story.
2. Does Confor, and its members, stand to gain from the tree-planting programme? Is that why a “trade body” is “warning” about this failure?
3. Zero chance of net zero.
“Farmers need help to plant trees with their crops”
Translation – farmers want money in return for planting trees.
“Scotland’s rural affairs secretary Mairi Gougeon said: “We are exploring ways in which we can make small woodlands on farms more attractive.”
She said this could possibly include considering whether they can be incorporated as an option to support Ecological Focus Area requirements under Greening, a farming subsidy for meeting environmental criteria.”
“Dip in UK woodland’s ability to capture CO2 as felled trees not replaced
While planting rates have risen in Scotland, carbon capture figures overall have fallen every year since 2009, official data shows”
“The amount of carbon dioxide captured by the UK’s forests has fallen by millions of tonnes and will remain at historically low rates for over a decade, because of a failure to quickly replace old forest stocks.
Official data shows the amount of CO2 absorbed annually by trees in the UK peaked at just under 20m tonnes in 2009, but has fallen every year since. Millions of mature conifers have been felled but not replaced, reducing the carbon they capture and store.
Official projections, which are based on the forestry stocks and policies in place in 2019, forecast the carbon they absorb will fall by 25% to 15m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) a year by 2025. In the absence of any further forests being planted, that could fall by half by 2038 to 10 MtC02e a year, the forecasts show.”
Official projections, eh? Also:
“A large area of new woodland was created across the UK in the latter half of the 20th century. Some of this woodland is managed through a sustainable cycle of felling and restocking – felled woodlands must be replanted under law – which results in peaks and troughs in the amount of CO2 that it removes from the atmosphere.
“However, as growth of young trees accelerates in the coming decades, CO2 removals will increase again. Significant increases in new planting in recent years will also contribute to rising levels of CO2 removals in future, supported through actions across the four administrations in the UK.””
It’s a non-scary scare story.