Stobo Hope is a valuable moorland habitat near Peebles in the Scottish Borders, part of a landscape designated as a National Scenic Area. It’s an important site for a number of species, not least Black Grouse and Golden Eagles.
Part of the site was formerly a grouse moor but that stopped quite a while ago and the heather ‘strips’ you can see in the distance in this photo is where the heather has been cut (as opposed to muirburn) for grazing management.
However, approximately ten square kilometres of this land has been bought by a company and approximately seven square kilometres is being planted with non-native Sitka Spruce, apparently in support of tackling climate change (but see here for a cautionary tale on tree-planting schemes in other areas of Scotland published on the always-interesting ParkWatchScotland blog).
This massive conifer plantation at Stobo has apparently been given the go-ahead by the Scottish Government (via its agency Scottish Forestry) and has awarded a grant in excess of £2 million (tax payers’ money) to support the development.
Local campaigners (Stobo Residents Action Group Ltd) claim that Scottish Forestry failed to follow the required legal protocols when assessing this development because they determined that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) wasn’t required. The campaigners argue that NatureScot advised that an EIA was necessary because the conifer plantation was likely to have ‘significant and adverse affects’ but it appears that Scottish Forestry has ignored this advice, and similar advice from others.
In April this year the Stobo Residents Action Group lodged a request at court to seek judicial review of Scottish Forestry’s decision to allow the development without an EIA. The Scottish court has just given the campaigners approval to proceed (which means the court agrees that the group has an arguable case) and the group is now preparing for the case to be heard, probably in the autumn.
Meanwhile, back on site, preparation of the ground for the Sitka plantation is well underway with ploughing of the carbon-rich soil, the construction of large roads and the widespread application of a herbicide that campaigners say ‘has wiped out important plant communities including heather, blaeberry and many species of wildflowers, grasses, ferns, lichens and mosses. This will also have had a devastating effect on faunal populations, destroying the habitat, cover and food supply for mammals, birds, reptiles and invertebrates including the red-listed black grouse‘.
Here are some photos of the recent work on site (all photos by Stobo Residents Action Group):
As many of you will know, judicial reviews cost money and these local residents are now crowdfunding to try and raise the estimated £35,000 needed to take the case to court. As always with these things, there’s no guarantee of success but the fact the court has now approved the application for judicial review is encouraging and gives these campaigners a fighting chance.
The campaigners have raised £15,500 so far of their £35,000 target. If you’d like to support them, please visit their crowdfunder page here.
In fact I’d recommend you visit it anyway and click on the ‘updates’ tab to read in more detail what they’re fighting against. If you’re able to contribute a few quid I know they’d really appreciate your help. Thank you.
UPDATE 11 September 2024: Legal success for Stobo Residents Action Group fighting against commercial forestry project (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
The trouble with any government is that regardless of court rulings they just bulldoze over any objections and anything else in the way even when anyone can see it is clear cut disaster a total titanic. I can think of plenty of examples, the disasterous railway between Birmingham and London being just one of them. I just wish we’d had a different result in the election because Reform are the only party that I can see that care that Great Britain and British Isles are not great anymore and there’s very little time now left before the damage to us will be irrepairable. As for the WOKE nonsense and climate claptap, I am now reaching the point where the very words of the subject make me foam at the mouth because its not about saving anything its about them making money, period.
“As for the WOKE nonsense and climate claptap…”
Whilst I agree that pig-ignorant politicians take decisions based on vested interests, and have almost zero understanding of science, the climate crisis is very real, and poses an increasingly existential threat to us.
But drying out natural peatland to plant an unsuitable, non-native pine will release more carbon than can be temporarily sequestered by the pine wood before it is harvested and its carbon released back into the atmosphere (*)
(*) I do not have information on what this company intends, but suspect it is either one of those greenwash schemes trading in so-called carbon credits, or a simple commercial timber operation. The fact they are proposing a non-native pine indicates that care for the environment is nowhere near their list of priorities.
The only comfort is that our future politicians will die along with the rest of us…
The term “Great Britain” has nothing to do with the fake patriotism of Lord Haw Haw Farage and his grubby band of fascists, or the delusional fantasies of their followers…
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/great-britain
“Lord Haw Haw Farage and his grubby band of fascists”
What a ridiculous statement. What evidence do you have to support your claim that Farage is a fascist? Or a Nazi, such as Lord Haw Haw?
If it walks like a duck…
I’ll not bite any further, Keith. I’ve read too many of your contrary for the sake of it comments. Save them for the gullible, mate.
“I’ll not bite any further, Keith. I’ve read too many of your contrary for the sake of it comments. Save them for the gullible, mate.”
So you have no evidence, then.
Plenty. I refuse, however to indulge your hobby of arguing the toss when you’re bored.
“I refuse, however to indulge your hobby of arguing the toss when you’re bored.”
I am not in the least bit bored.
Irrespective of the names one might choose to apply to them, the Reform Party is an unpleasant, populist, right-wing rabble with a distinctly racist tendency. As far as this post is concerned, the point is that it is a party that has strictly nothing to offer for protection of the environment. Their manifesto (‘contract’) for the election had nothing to say on biodiversity but promised to slash red-tape (i.e. let businessmen do what the hell they want wherever they want – so tough luck for anyone hoping that the afforestation of large areas of upland Britain with sitka spruce might be subject to some kind of control.
On fishing they want to stop super-trawlers fishing in UK waters – fantastic! but, oh! it’s just foreign ones they want to stop and they want to replace them with good old great British super-trawlers so no benefit there for the fish or for all the sea-bottom dwelling species that end up as collateral damage.
On agriculture they want to stop climate-related subsidies and protect country sports. No benefit for the environment discernible there.
On legislation they want to scrap all EU laws with immediate effect. As well as creating legislative chaos, this would give a free hand to those who wish to destroy habitats in their pursuit of profit or pleasure. Don’t doubt that there are people out there who would be more than happy to exploit the opportunity.
I’m pretty sure that if wildlife could vote it would not vote for this rabble. Sadly, quite a few people did in the election that has just passed but I very much hope they will not make the same mistake again. Reform will not ‘make Britain great again’.
[This comment disappeared the first time I tried to upload it so I re-entered it. Apologies if it appears twice.]
“the Reform Party is an unpleasant, populist, right-wing rabble with a distinctly racist tendency”
You may be correct in your other opinions, but they are not racist.
“As far as this post is concerned, the point is that it is a party that has strictly nothing to offer for protection of the environment.”
As I do, I wrote to every political party standing in my constituency (and many conservation organisations) before the most recent General Election – this time providing a brief referenced report linking human population growth with habitat loss and growing environmental and resource crises… among other things.
I linked habitat loss with loss of bioabundance, and – to a lesser extent – loss of biodiversity.
Most ignored it, as they do, but one conservation organisation welcomed it, together with – shock, horror – the Reform Party who said they agreed with it.
The Lib Dems replied saying they do accept the idea that increased human populations led to habitat loss, or that habitat loss led to crises in the environment.
“I’m pretty sure that if wildlife could vote it would not vote for this rabble.”
If wildlife had a vote, would it for increased human populations?
Not explicitly racist in its public utterances but it is the natural political home of racists (and I understand that that does not necessarily mean everyone in the party is racist) as shown by the fact that repeatedly candidates, party workers and and supporters are exposed for making explicitly racist comments/social media posts. Farage himself is on record as having expressed a dislike for hearing foreign languages spoken on British public transport. He is too media savvy to come right out with explicitly racist comments but he certainly knows how to blow the dog whistles.
Wildlife might well vote for no human population at all (you couldn’t blame it) but there is no evidence that the problems faced by wildlife in this country are fundamentally due to immigration though it comes as no surprise at all to hear that the Reform Party considers they are.
“there is no evidence that the problems faced by wildlife in this country are fundamentally due to immigration”
Are you claiming that there is NO evidence that population increases have ever had any adverse effect on wildlife in the UK? That there is NO evidence that our population increase have ever led to any loss of habitat in the UK? Or that there is NO evidence that habitat loss has ever had an adverse effect on wildlife in the UK?
Or, are you claiming that there is NO evidence that net immigration has ever led to any population increase in the UK?
Depending upon the time span, net immigration directly accounted for more than half (60%) of the UK population growth:
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-impact-of-migration-on-uk-population-growth/#:~:text=More%20than%20half%20(60%25),direct%20contribution%20of%20net%20migration.&text=Official%20figures%20projected%20that%20the,for%2092%25%20of%20this%20growth.
“Official figures projected that the UK’s population would grow from 67 million in 2021 to 77 million in 2046, and that net immigration would account for 92% of this growth.”
“Projected population growth is faster in England than in the other UK nations. Scotland and Wales would experience population decline without future net immigration”
If you include the births to non-UK-born mothers (ONS figures show that 30.3% of births in England and Wales were to non-UK-born mothers) net immigration is then linked to 82% of the net growth in the UK population:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/migration-linked-to-82-of-growth-in-the-population-t8tr99f6v
In just the last two years, there has been a net legal immigration of 1.45 million people (that is equal to more than one and quarter new Birminghams, or nearly three new Manchesters!)
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingdecember2023
As I understand it this scheme is 46% Sitka Spruce with the balance divided between broadleaves and open ground. A very long way from the first generation plantations people will be familiar with, and a good thing too. Rather than a Sitka plantation this is mixed woodland. By coincidence I was re-reading the 1985/6 reports of RSPB Black grouse research in Wales and this sort of mixture of habitat matches Black Grouse requirements quite well – in Wales all the lek sites were found in the vicinity of woodland.
None of that takes away from people’s entirely valid and sincere feelings about what will for right or wrong be a drastic change to their local landscape. It raises the huge question of how we as a society manage change – which most of us would acknowledge we urgently need not just taking action over climate change but also a landscape in Scotland pretty well stripped bare by centuries of abuse. Watching from a distance, I fear I’m not impressed by the level of debate – forestry has once again got the upper hand and may not be making the effort required to take people with it, whilst conservation interests rely on trying to trash the forestry case, taking the role of objector rather than playing an active part in looking forward.
i can’t believe that this enterprise is receiving £2 million of tax payers money. If it was a true environmental project surely a vast majority would be broad leaf trees with Scots pine the remainder. Nature always seems to lose out to corporate greed. These so called carbon scheme’s need to be stopped and replaced with local lead projects. Land based windmill projects now look next to being on the list of nature destruction, I’ll bet the politicians who push for windmill won’t have them anywhere near their homes.
Another short-term, profit-oriented scheme that ruins thousands of acres of complex peatland ecology, releases tonnes of previously captured carbon back into the air again, introduces more non-native species, destroys wildlife habitats and reduces Scotland’s biodiversity level even further. Unfortunately, these types of schemes and ‘renewable’ energy developments are being aggressively promoted by the Scottish Government. How good it would be if they put half as much effort into restoring Scotland’s damaged peatlands and vanishing temperate rainforests, and allowed biodiversity, and subsequently our whole planet, to flourish again.
Do you know the name of the person, or body, who sold the land to this company? What is the name of the company that bought it? Having lived in Scotland for the past 9 years and having moved back to England recently due to a variety of reasons, I am aware of just how corrupt that country is. Quite how the Scottish Government decided to award £2 million of public money to this concern is open to speculation. It appears to be unlawful based on the fact that no EIA had been done which was a legal requirement in this case. It has a distinct smell to it.
Crass and crude, and with a sprinkling of corruption somewhere in this project to make others richer at the expense of our countryside and its threatened biodiversity. In an age of constant information flow on what is happening world-wide to the natural world, and the consequences irrefutable, we have those who are supposed to be good stewards, at times acting if as nothing negative will come from their blatant decisions. When will come the day when the UK, and indeed the suffering world, be free of blood sports and the planting of inappropriate crops from palm oil to Sitka Spruce? Whoever is involved in sanctioning this insult to the environment most certainly is ignoring public opinion.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. My understanding is that less than half of the property is to be planted with productive conifers, far less than the purported 700 ha, though we do need timber for house building.
I have seen it reported that 130 ha will be native species that provide valuable habitat networks that connect adjacent catchments and as much as 140 ha of land is designed with black grouse in mind. This will no doubt enhance their chance of success, and also benefit other threatened species, including raptors. Ploughing isn’t used in forestry anymore and various policies and best practices ensure that deep peat soils are protected.
Based on the above figures, the scheme delivers far more diversity than the minimum requirements of the UK Forestry Standard, meaning it more than conforms with Scottish Government’s policies for woodland expansion, and is therefore eligible for grant support.
We can continue to pay farmers to curate failing upland landscapes with low productive value and try to cling to the resultant fragmented habitats, or seek to safeguard and enhance what remains and create something that provides much needed sustainable building materials that are blended with enduring native woodland and open habitats that future generations will enjoy.
‘Ploughing isn’t used in forestry anymore…..’ . If this is the case, maybe you could explain what is going on in the last of the images.
It’s pretty clear it’s not ploughing, as there’s no plough line and it certainly isn’t peat. Looks more like disc scarification.
Comment deleted as libellous.