The downside of them not is people will view them badly and want them gone. An increase is biodiversity will, probably, increase people visiting the land and thus more revenue. I can’t think of a downside to it.
> The duchy of Cornwall, run by Prince Charles, has only 6% tree cover, and the duchy of Lancaster has 13%. The average in the UK is 16%
> The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2021 is estimated to be 3.23 million hectares. This represents 13% of the total land area in the UK, 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 9% in Northern Ireland.
As Cornwall and Lancaster are in England comparing their coverage to the English coverage gives a different picture. After a quick search I can’t find any specific figures for tree coverage in Cornwall, but I’m tempted to say it’s not a lot.
Rewilding and forestation are indeed something to be looked at, but as with most groups on both side they often carefully choose their statistics.
Ok, lets look at this sensibly.
I’m only going to concentrate on Duchy Cornwall as I don’t know much about the Dutchy of Lancaster’s holdings or the other royal estates.
Since they cut the trees down in the early bronze age, the moors which these forested areas have become over the last 4 or 5 thousand years are no longer suitable for growing trees in any number. This just isn’t land for growing trees on unless you are talking about conifer plantations, and even they struggle in the overly acidic soil.
You would be lucky to grow much round the Cornish coast as it’s very windswept and the land is salted.
The ecology was destroyed millennia ago so there is little natural as far as the land is concerned that makes it suitable for rewilding. Sure you could fence it off and just leave alone and see what it evolves into in a few centuries time, but you are never going to cover it in natural Oak and Ash forests again. That ship sailed long before the Romans got here.
4 comments
How do I campaign for snub trees?
What’s the advantages of them not doing it?
The downside of them not is people will view them badly and want them gone. An increase is biodiversity will, probably, increase people visiting the land and thus more revenue. I can’t think of a downside to it.
> The duchy of Cornwall, run by Prince Charles, has only 6% tree cover, and the duchy of Lancaster has 13%. The average in the UK is 16%
I’m not sure where they get the 16% from as https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/woodland-statistics/ shows 13% of the UK.
> The area of woodland in the UK at 31 March 2021 is estimated to be 3.23 million hectares. This represents 13% of the total land area in the UK, 10% in England, 15% in Wales, 19% in Scotland and 9% in Northern Ireland.
As Cornwall and Lancaster are in England comparing their coverage to the English coverage gives a different picture. After a quick search I can’t find any specific figures for tree coverage in Cornwall, but I’m tempted to say it’s not a lot.
Rewilding and forestation are indeed something to be looked at, but as with most groups on both side they often carefully choose their statistics.
Ok, lets look at this sensibly.
I’m only going to concentrate on Duchy Cornwall as I don’t know much about the Dutchy of Lancaster’s holdings or the other royal estates.
[The vast majority of Duchy Cornwall land (about 135,526 acres) appears to be taken up with Dartmoor, Bodmin moor and the coastline of Cornwall](https://whoownsengland.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/duchy-of-cornwall-nat-geographic-mag-2006.png?w=768). I would guess that estimated 6% tree cover is about right.
Since they cut the trees down in the early bronze age, the moors which these forested areas have become over the last 4 or 5 thousand years are no longer suitable for growing trees in any number. This just isn’t land for growing trees on unless you are talking about conifer plantations, and even they struggle in the overly acidic soil.
You would be lucky to grow much round the Cornish coast as it’s very windswept and the land is salted.
The ecology was destroyed millennia ago so there is little natural as far as the land is concerned that makes it suitable for rewilding. Sure you could fence it off and just leave alone and see what it evolves into in a few centuries time, but you are never going to cover it in natural Oak and Ash forests again. That ship sailed long before the Romans got here.