Category Archives: Trees and Woodlands

Terroir – why we need to understand it.

I remain convinced that the true French concept of ‘Terroir’ remains the answer to the majority of issues in regards the past, present and future of European land management.

The fact that Anglophones just don’t get it, indeed even second language English Europeans, is not just sad but potentially very damaging.

Combined with the increasing amount of frankly obtuse buzzwords, easily twistable, easily confused, it is easy to understand why we are left in a literary desert where the oasis’s are real to a few, but a mirage to the majority – to those that matter.

Terroir may be a French word and thus ‘unsuitable’ for adoption in the increasingly anti European mindset of many English speakers (it’d be interesting to see a word count of how many words of French derivative appear in the Daily Mail!). But it really does remain the very best word to cross all political boundaries and all chasms between those that work in all our landscapes that exists.

Terroir is, as best as I can interpret; Everything within a landscape that afects the soil (which is pretty much everything!) and thus the taste, (and taste, this is the really important bit, equals money). Thus all supplements, be it new development or pesticide usage, can or could, (explaining why the precautionary principle is so important to the French), affect the taste of a product produced there. Therefore terroir is the marriage of all sciences, social and earth, it is all the elements both natural and man made within a place and you.

If any commentator, academic, practitioner or politician suggests an alternative word or phrase they need to justify this – and they will never be able to do so successfully, (but my goodness they do try with extraordinary and very costly – to us as taxpayers – failure), So why bother?

Terroir is ‘Ecosystem Systems’ + ‘Sustainable Development’. It is the value of everything to value anything. Without everything that value is nothing. This includes monetary value and no non ‘commodity’ product exists that has such a high value than a terroir product. Let us be honest, (even the most deep green of ecologists included!) it is and has to be about money. How much is ‘Whisky’ worth to the Scot’s economy, how much ‘Champagne’ to the French? To continue to copy these products is completely stupid – you may win an award, but this is meaningless if you haven’t protected the landscape from which this product is born! You are simply good at plagiarising! Never something to be proud of and not in the case of terroir something that helps the biodiversity and both the natural elements and historic landscape features of the place that product was born.

Terroir negates ‘Sustainable Tourism’ & ‘Sustainable Intensive Agriculture’. Both of which are oxymorons, which is why many don’t understand the terms and certainly with good reason don’t trust them. Terroir however doesn’t attempt to hide behind language that can be easily labeled as greenwash, it doesn’t need to. Tourism and CAP fuelled agriculture is as strong in France as anywhere else, indeed more so. Terroir products enable a secondary economy, one which provides a much needed stable safety net against all agricultural policy making, whilst at the same time providing a tangible link to the landscape you visit. The reason why the food and drink you experience on holiday tastes better when you are there is because of terroir – the smells and intangible emotions of a place are in those products also, heightening your experience. And when purchasing these products you directly aid the protection of that place, the biodiversity, the cultural heritage etc., without any % paid into the considerable administration budgets of a nature conservation NGO.

Terroir equals good health & wellbeing as well as strengthening communities. The French, and other nationalities with terroir diets, enjoy the healthiest diets in the world. The precise reasons as to why this is so remain elusive, however it is clear that there is a correlation with terroir. Cheeses and meats with a wide range of alcoholic and non alcoholic drinks only require a basic carbohydrate addition (often terroir produce also) as the flavours are much more distinct. Communities with a shared terroir are habitually stronger as these products require a communal effort due to the effort required at harvest time as the value of many terroir products does not justify the cost of imported labour.

Terroir is Sustainable Soil Management. It really is all about the soil, which we still know little about yet abuse with abandon, contrary to what many commentators and lobbyists believe. In place of a soils directive and indeed stronger in protective measures to anything the directive could have installed, terroir is based on a fundamental to ensure the soil remains as it is to ensure the produce remains as it is. Thus any and all additions to the soil need to be scrutinised hard, from compost to pesticide, biochar to bullsh#t. The UK obsession that we need to improve our soils by supplements all the time is just wrong! We certainly need to improve our soils by tackling the ludicrous consolidation and counter productive drainage methods. But otherwise we can learn a lot by terroir by doing nothing at all.

Terroir is Traditional Knowledge. Quite why we do not have a suitable English translation for terroir is proof indeed as to how much we have lost traditional knowledge and skills. The UK and elsewhere certainly produced a lot of great terroir products (and still do!), the extraordinary quantity of unique landscapes in such a small country allowed for an extraordinary range of produce, (and still can). Terroir is an appreciation of many processes which are slowly but surely being recognised by modern science. Our predecessors were not all stupid peasants carving out the landscape at the instruction of their liege – but had guessed and worked with the extraordinary interconnectedness of everything.

Terroir is not just a word and maybe we’ll never understand the true meaning as any French can. But in trying to do so we will find many solutions and indeed simply having one word where a thousand are used is incredibly beneficial in itself as it will aid ongoing discussion. But I believe there are too many, (both farming lobbyists, suppliers etc., and environmental NGOs and Quangos) who will fight hard against any doing even that!

In the meantime search some terroir produce out and enjoy, knowing that you are aiding the most sustainable and environmentally friendly method of land management in existence in Europe today.


Leave a comment

Filed under Trees and Woodlands

Ria Oak Woodland

The Ria’s of South Devon and Cornwall are unique. The conditions they cope with cannot possibly equate them with upland sessile Oak woodland, which they match in terms of indicator species found and percentages.


The Oaks face salt dumping on an extraordinary level, up to 200 kg per hectare per annum. On every spring tide the limbs themselves dip into the seawater of the ria’s, which are much less brackish than the majority of estuaries in Europe.


The Oaks themselves have a body language that defies the textbooks as they are. Natural grafting of roots aids these trees to create a leverage against their collapse. The basal area hangs below the tree adapting to the need to create a counterbalance to the often 90° rootplate.


These trees rarely hollow despite considerable age. The timber is of immense strength and value. Prized in past history as perfect for sculpting ship figureheads.


Nowadays, following failure, the trees become a vital part of a very special localised ecosystem.

But this is becoming increasingly frequent. These trees are under immense threat for the majority of their linear range along the coastline of the Ria’s.

In most places the trees are now only found in steep sloped areas due to a long term pressure to develop or gentrify areas where access to the water playground is easy. Soil creep is substantial, particularly given the immense rootplates. These trees rotate slowly, falling into the tidal zone and allowing Oaks upslope to take their position. But with increasing extreme weather the undermining of the trees by frequent storms sees also a dramatic increase in trees falling into the tidal zone – only set to worsen as climate change continues.

Worst of all is that there are few oaks to replace those falling into the tidal zone. The strip of woodland is decreasing in width and where the woodlands widen they are far too often planted up with ornamental specimens and in some places unsuitable ‘native woodland’ mixes of seriously dubious source.

These trees and woodland are of high cultural value. The history of these Ria estuaries is intertwined with these trees. The foreshore cannot be seen, it is shielded by the overhanging Oaks, smuggling was rife and in more modern times the area was ideal for concealing the embarkation of many D Day troops and vehicles.


As with so many tree, orchard and woodland situations in the UK the continuing centralisation of policy, both governmental and NGO, has forsaken the uniqueness of these situations lumping all into over riding guidance and sometimes increasing threats rather than reducing them. As when I spoke to one landowner, he cannot get any assistance; technical advice is “spurious and blinkered” suiting an NGO or Quango’s aims and objectives over and above the local landscape conditions. The site specific solutions can only follow on from community led action, and it is clear that communities in the UK are increasingly severely and deliberately restricted to do anything at all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Trees and Woodlands

Trees – we just don’t know, so why say that we do?

It’s not what we know about trees and forests, but what we don’t know that we should be selling to the public.

Take the debate over the Defynnog Yew Vs. Fortingall Yew.

If we start accepting that subterranean or ‘non stem’ influences are in play when determining the age, size – the importance of a tree, we start to run into real problems with regards all current classification. What has been ‘sold’ so far no longer applies. This means that the tallest, (to include the root system – which we know little about!), biggest, oldest trees in Britain, Europe and the World are suddenly in question. However is this not a good thing? Can we not turn this to our advantage? Would this not stimulate a discussion which can only lead to better research and better definitions of all aspects of a tree? At a time when research into trees and soils is so important yet sidelined by almost everything else.

We would also have to accept that many ‘tools’ in the arboricultural practitoners kitbag are useless, worse than useless – quite possibly seriously damaging the tree’s rhizosphere – frankly this could only be a good thing. The ‘air spade’ for example, blasting away what we can’t see, what we don’t understand or know even exists because the research hasn’t been done yet but which we do know, or some of us at least, is incredibly important to trees and their value to us. And don’t get me started on leaf blowers.

The playground for new research with regards trees should be mainly in the peri-urban and urban landscapes. We can take more risks with the soils. As England rapidly proceeds to a state where most of its soils can be considered ‘Technosols’, mainly due to a lack of publicity over the lack of knowledge, we have to stimulate a debate in order to avoid continued destruction of the unknown. That the easiest place to discover a new species known to science is not in the Amazon or in a deep sea trench but in a teaspoon of soil from anyone’s back garden – an axiom that we can further use to revitalise a tired and dreadfully faded lack of interest in Trees and Soils – this is the new horizon.

In my career, sometimes on a day to day basis, I see incredible things which need research – it cannot be a coincidence that time and time and time again trees adapt to the most incredible situations. But it is too much and too easy to ridicule – and so practitioners and tree ‘owners’ have to forget what they observe as though they had seen a ghost or UFO.

However that silence allows pure nonsense to pass through instead. Biochar, Biodiversity Offsetting, Lunar influences etc.,
Which can amazingly be swallowed up by many quite sensible people as though it were barley sugar.

Therefore if we don’t start to open the flood gates a little the flood will always, as at present, come over the top.

This video ‘Underground Market‘ is a clever little animation highlighting rhizosphere interactions. In reality you can speed this up by X 1,000,000,000 as well as an extra X 1,000,000,000 pretty pulsating fairy lights and still be far off from what is actually going on.

Celebrate that and we may start to get somewhere.

The last frontier is not the deep ocean or space – it is the rhizosphere! And it was the first frontier also. But some silly buggers forgot to note their observations down in favour of chasing one king or even one god instead.


1 Comment

Filed under Trees and Woodlands

It’s less about planting trees, more about saving trees

It is shocking how little ‘news’ there is about the extraordinary amount of deforestation there is going on now, right now, across the globe.

Is it worse than ever before? we don’t know – but its likely. We have simply failed to date to educate, to legislate, towards protecting what we absolutely have to if we give even the slightest damn about our children.

It is quite clear then that many really don’t care about their children’s futures.

The greed to accumulate wealth before it all runs out almost seems like a competition, one that far too many participate in, despite the obvious conclusion that nothing can be won.

As politicians follow this gameplay like lovestruck fans following any old airbrushed talentless teenager who can pitch a high note if he swallows enough helium, we are stupid to believe that any amount of lobbying will achieve anything. They will pick any route they can in encouraging an invitation for a free holiday to an oligarch’s private island to slaver over this wealth.

Far too many ‘tree planting’ schemes tie in with this. A means to offset, to re-landscape the wild as though it were a Slough industrial estate, despite the clear lack of knowledge needed to fully value our forests and trees and the biodiversity and cultural heritage attached to them. Whatever the promises made, signatures gathered etc., are in truth meaningless – nothing has changed, indeed it is worse. On site protestors, even in countries like Australia, fight with the threat of arrest – indeed for many the threat of death looming.

Can we as European foresters and other tree professionals, who know that we can provide the answers, continue to ignore the importance of the role we can play in fighting against deforesters – who threaten us financially and socially?

We foresters and arbs based in Europe should be leading the battle, helping – not silently cheering – those who face our foes on the ground. And in doing so empower our industry to where it should be – at the top of real sustainable development.

1 Comment

Filed under Trees and Woodlands

Non Woodland Tree Local Heroes

Since a return to South West England, I remain more convinced that any and all solutions towards all forms of sustainable land management can only be found landscape by landscape.

It is all too easy to find oneself sunk in the media induced mire, particular to the UK, that the PR world has created that cloaks, with a gooey, smelly, cloudy substance, all press, radio and television coverage of all landscapes, urban and rural. I find myself in a great crowd of people walking up the middle road, subject to periodic sniping by those on the hills left and right of the track (for example Monbiot et al. Vs The NFU), who are constantly fighting each other with larger guns over our heads.

Ignore media and with enough time on your hands it becomes evident that in most, probably all, communities in their landscape there are locals who are walking the same middle road, but it is a ridgeway – dividing the armies below – and just getting on it with it. These locals are not amateurs – they are the experts. Some of the work I have seen recently is not just ‘useful’ local study but actual solutions. I cannot highlight much here, though I’d love to, because those happy in the mire are all too happy far too often to steal this work for their purposes rather than feed into it.


Wild Service Tree, Dart Estuary. I was shown the location of this tree by a local resident.

Is this a problem, so much valuable information, so many solutions locked up in the local landscape? As we see much more flippant policy making, a dramatic and scary increase in threats to the landscape and heavily reduced budgets surely this isn’t a problem – but actually incredibly helpful – but only if locals were actually listened to.

Non woodland trees (NWT) is a useful generic term taken from the French arbres hors forêts, to include all ornamental, amenity, orchard, hedgerow, urban, wood pasture and agrofestry trees etc., – cultural heritage trees. As we see a continued debate as to where interest (and therefore funding) should be concentrated in forestry and arboriculture any means to break down barriers at national (and international) level to talk about trees can only be beneficial. But when it comes to local situations, where the solutions lie, we need to be very prudent indeed.

As such citizen science worries me, it can be brilliant for other natural elements in the landscape – particularly wildlife and the BTO Bird Atlas is a clear example. But NWT and indeed woodland trees to a large extent cannot be so easily ‘boxed’. Most tree species have far too many additional factors related to the landscape they grow in to allow for any national categorisation. And as I was told by the UK’s number one tree hunter, Rob McBride, we are still a long way off simply registering all the ancient and venerable trees in the UK – a worthy project, which has spread abroad and truly helps in highlighting the arboreal wonders which help define a nation itself; a potential catalyst towards helping communities identify all the trees of importance in their landscape.

ImageSessile Oak (Q. petraea) Dart Estuary. 

But I am not an ‘Ancient Tree’ enthusiast (despite having a healthy dose of enthusiasm injected into me by Rob and with a clear appreciation of how important these trees are). I tend to hone in on trees with interesting connections to old construction – particularly terraces and hedgerows. And there is a range of enthusiasts to cover virtually all trees for all circumstances.

Andrew Ormerod is a fruit tree specialist and enthusiast (the majority of people who work with trees tend to be enthusiasts also – check out any social media ‘tree’ group and you will find a host of arborists, arboriculturalists, foresters etc., in the group). A day spent with Andrew unlocks the extraordinary wealth of cultural heritage surrounding fruit trees. As with Rob and many others, Andrew works with people first and foremost – engaging those in the community in order to further their own work and by doing so becoming the hub for all trees in that landscape themselves. Can you possibly transfer such a wealth of knowledge into a national hub? Absolutely not – but the case study remains a vital resource.


Ancient Apple Tree, Fowey Estuary

Therefore the only way to assist communities to value their trees properly and most importantly to re-establish those strong cultural links to their trees, which have in most places virtually disappeared completely, is to use the only decent political boundaries that exist in the UK to determine community by community – the parish. Thus local council involvement is vital.

The work of Christopher Neilan in helping to produce Parish Tree Strategies in Epping Forest District Council is an existing solution that can help to define all trees of all values in any particular community and help towards any decision making within that landscape. Most importantly it helps children to understand their trees in their landscape.


Hen Anderson and Rob Mcbride talking trees

1 Comment

Filed under Trees and Woodlands

Lets Get Real About Who Built our Most Celebrated Landscape Features

It is well known and clearly obvious that many of the traditional dry stone wall structures in Cornwall were built by women. Many of the best walls on Dartmoor were built by prisoners of war and indeed a significant proportion of landscape features now regarded as enigmatic of a particular landscape anywhere in Europe were / are the result of immigrants.


‘Heritage’ is an abused word, because heritage itself is abused. The neatly strimmed ‘places’ of international significance, with souvenir shops as identical as ‘Starbucks’ cafe’s, cannot in anyway invoke a sense of what that place was when in use, where are the gardens for a start? The sale of Heritage today is rapidly at odds with sustainability and it is a real problem when attempting to break from the obsession for ‘exciting’ history and explore the rich knowledge and skills our forebears had when constructing landscape features with multiple, sustainable benefits.

I recently visited the Roc aux Sorciers interpretation centre, (the actual site is closed to the public), and was dismayed trailing around the expensive and well designed plastic displays that portrayed men carving the extraordinary 15,000 year old sculptures. Really! Didn’t anyone else think that this was highly unlikely? – particularly the oldest sculptures of the female form in the world, these are surely not carved by men, due to the chronological form.


Or have I missed that research that suggests with good evidence that prehistoric women did nothing at all, except cook and make rudimentary clothing. Across Europe such ‘interpretation’ is habitually sexist.

But then how will society regard man made features in their most treasured landscapes if it is widely accepted that they are not man made at all but made by woman. I know ‘man made’ is a term for human – but the sex is important if we are to truly understand the skills and knowledge of the techniques used in order to maintain these features properly, (which we cannot say we are doing so at the moment), or if we are to attempt similar multi value sustainable land management techniques today, as we need to.

Although maybe we need to keep quiet about the fact that a significant proportion of our highly valued landscape features were constructed by prisoners, prisoners of war and immigrants, given some of the rhetoric coming out of prospective political candidates mouths at the moment or these features will be under the same threats as the teaching of modern science in schools.

1 Comment

Filed under Trees and Woodlands

Measuring Landscape

There’s something about the way that fields and churches and orchards and houses and dry-stone walls have been artfully arranged over the centuries that nourishes our inner life and calms the human psyche; wilderness, on the other hand, is just saying ‘Woooaaahhh'”

Pete McCarthy

Between landscape research and subsequent policy and the work of land management practitioners there exist large, deep chasms.

Landscape means much to many and it is impossible, indeed dangerous to try, to reduce anyone’s perception of landscape – particularly their own landscape. But governments and others do so regularly, as they have to under the banner of economic progress, and resulting cost due to protest is high.

In many ways it can be argued that the widespread ‘dumbing down’ of our landscapes – both the mention of them and the reduction of elements in them that increase the multiple values of that landscape – is a deliberate attempt to avoid the supposed complications arising from having to consult. And consultation processes these days are all too often based on the assumption, quite rightly in the majority of cases, that there will be protest, with the media happily helping to ensure that any protest will be as vicious as possible by way of highlighting the polarised extreme views and never the middle line. We all end up paying too much money.

So the easiest solution is for policy makers and others to aim to ‘simplify’ processes in land management planning and land use instead and by doing so remove the most significant of voices; those who belong to that landscape, because it is assumed too difficult to quantify their sense of ownership of that landscape.


In working with others exploring ways to quantify landscape values in order to highlight good landscape management practice it has been a huge shock, and frankly a bit scary, to realise there has been little attempt to do so before in tune with traditional practitioner methodology, a methodology all too aware of the complexity and diversity of the landscape concerned. Media can’t possibly highlight the huge range of factors it really needs to – and the resulting ‘coverage’ of landscape and land use is invariably lacking. Unfortunately policy makers are now forced into accepting such coverage in their decision making and thus a further barrier is created, in turn imposing fashions on landscape management thus moving steadily further away from sustainability.

Practitioners and others invariably work with a site specific approach, where the background information, usually spatial and thus mapped, can be over layered on top of the plan of the site involved (the vertical) and then ‘on site’ the lateral information is determined (the horizontal). It is the point of the angle between the vertical and the horizontal which has become a problem. Those needed to help determine an accurate and effective lateral input into the planning are all too often excluded. These vital stakeholders, which must, if the planning is to work properly, include those from that landscape are now all too often usurped by a gang of green fleeced self appointed ‘experts’ whose special isms are wonderful insights into a minute factor with regards that landscape but not much more. No surprise we have dangerous policy which only hones in on the needs of 1 or 2 species – such as biodiversity offsetting English style.


What we really need are those belonging to a landscape to point out things for consideration. And these things or features are what we need to quantify. Given the substantial evidence that a significant proportion of our biodiversity is now to be found in man made landscape features, we cannot allow for our human influenced landscapes, our rich cultural landscapes to be forsaken completely in favour of chasing an ideal habitat for one or two rarities – although this is still something that should and can be done according to the site specifics of some of our more unique landscapes and areas of importance for particular indicator species.

So measuring a landscape towards defining good landscape management practice involves identifying and measuring landscape features, and that is what I am involved with now. The results are surprising and the realisation of the extraordinary quantity of values that can be attributed to some of our traditional landscape features highlights just how low we value the natural and man made in the world around us – as well as how low we value ourselves and the privilege of being part of a landscape, any landscape.

At present I’m playing about with external surface area measurements for dry stone walls, ultimately to try and find a standardised system of measuring these features. Initial results are surprising, one square metre of wall face = (on average) an external surface area of 8.3 square metres, including 1.8 metres of horizontal surface. Thus 100 metres of dry stone wall = 432 square metres of flat surface area, ideal for many small mammals, birds, reptiles and a vast range of invertebrates. Making a mockery of grubbing out such a feature for crop maximisation only to then plant wide strips of wildflowers as a measure to combat biodiversity concerns. Imagine further that the dry stone wall is a Cornish hedge and include the surface area of the plants and trees growing on it! Immense – and that’s still not including the wider benefits of these features, for example for water management purposes, of such concern in the UK at present where the debate is largely focussed on sheep and tree planting.


Our land management forebears created an extraordinary landscape of beauty and immense sustainable value, how can we have been so stupid to ignore this for so long?

Being a very small part of a very large new project towards landscape (HERCULES – HERitage in CULtural landscapES) and seeing the initial research I’m delighted to feel optimistic that soon we all will be able to engage with the planning of all our landscapes.


Filed under Trees and Woodlands