Skógræktarritið - 15.05.2001, Blaðsíða 97

lohnston (1989) suggests the for-
mation of a land-users' group,
which would allow for more
accountability from government
agencies and for community dri-
ven aspirations and decision-
making to be at the core of future
land-use policies.
So where does the future of
woodlands in Shetland fit into all
of this? It has to be admitted that
at present trees and woodlands
are marginal- not only geograph-
ically but culturally and political-
ly. A recent consultation docu-
ment, produced this year by
Shetland Islands Council (SIC),
stated: "Shetland’s Iandscape is
one of extensive vistas in which
almost every building or devel-
opment can be seen. As screening
witfi trees is not a practical proposition
(my italics), the first design prin-
ciple is to seek locations which
have some enclosure from the
surrounding land form or in
which the visual impact can be
minimised" (SIC 2000).
This statement sits rather at
odds with reality, in which many
houses have gardens with trees
and, as has been demonstrated
above, and as can be seen by
those who wish to see, there has
been some considerable success
in growing trees in the past cen-
tury. It is a reflection of the fact
that the Council has no land-
scape architect or equivalent to
the Faroese "city gardener" in its
employment. And in spite of the
fact that Shetland Amenity Trust
(SAT), which has fifteen years’
experience of managing, growing
and planting trees, is core-fund-
ed by the Council's oil revenues,
there seems to be a complete
ignorance of the Trust's aims and
achievements.
Demonstrating that certain
trees and woodlands can grow in
certain locations remains, how-
ever, central to Shetland Amenity
Trust's woodland strategy. Under
the auspices of the Millennium
Forest for Scotland Trust (MFST)
and the Forestry Commission's
Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS),
together with aid from SNH and
EC grants, a rolling programme
of small community woodlands
has been initiated, with a total of
6.5 hectares being completed
this year.
Another initiative, sponsored
by the readership of a leading UK
Sunday newspaper and an organ-
isation called Future Forests,
should result in a further two
hectares being planted in the
vicinity of Lerwick, Shetland’s
capital, next year. Other new
woodlands, funded by the WGS,
currently add up to 20 ha., whiie
mature and semi-mature wood-
land in Shetland constitutes a
total of approximately 25 ha.,
much of which is being actively
managed or extended.
There is plenty of willingness
among the general public to
plant trees and woodland. The
local horticultural industry is
thriving, and enquiries to
Shetland Amenity Trust asking
for advice on tree planting are
numerous. There is very good
encouragement from the
Highland Conservancy of the
Forestry Commission, and the
Forest Research branch of the
same organisation have lately
sponsored several trials in
Shetland. The affiliation of
Shetland Amenity trust to the
Nordic Arboretum Council (NAU)
has been extremely fruitful, with
new species and provenances
not available on the UK market,
being tested and propagated.
Conclusions
Two political/economic factors
are required to ensure that
woodland development in
Shetland becomes more than a
marginal or "extra-curricular"
activity:-
• Changes in agricuitural (or
land use) policy and practice.
• Changes in local government
attitudes and policy towards
trees/woodland and land use.
The main agricultural incentive
towards woodland establishment
is the nationally administered
Farm Woodland Premium
Scheme (FWPS) which is run con-
currently with the WGS. Grants of
up to £ 100 per ha. for 15 years
are offered; which compensate
for the number of sheep exclud-
ed from planted areas. The WGS
offers a basic£ 1,350 per ha. for
planting broad-leaves and £700
per ha. for conifers, with various
supplements. Uptake in Shet-
land, however, is currently low
for these schemes.
One may conclude that there is
good nationally provided incen-
tive for woodland establishment.
But until emphasis on sheep pro-
duction as being the only practi-
cal form of land use in Shetland
is as drastically reduced as the
number of sheep themselves,
one may not expect much more
than a token move in realising
the incentive.
The SIC does very little to pro-
mote tree planting. in fact, I may
go so far as to say that trees are
regarded by the SIC largely as a
joke. It is ironic that the recent
hurricane force winds would not
have damaged so many vege-
table crops, both agricultural and
domestic, had there been more
protection from shelterbelts-
even to the level of hedgerows.
Furthermore, the SIC does lit-
tle more as far as land use is
concerned, than prop up the
existing agricultural system with
its lime and fertiliser grants. It
could take a more constructive
attitude towards what is evi-
dently a crisis in both ecological
and economic terms for Shet-
land's agriculture, for example
by promoting and steering the
SKÓGRÆKTARRITIÐ 2001 l.tbl.
95