Sophie Taylor
Peebles, my hometown, is nestled in the heart of a valley framed by rolling green hills and a patchwork of trees. As a child, my favourite spot was atop Glentress Forest behind our house, where vibrant woodlands stretched below and beyond.
Now I’m older and a bit wiser, I appreciate these woods for more than their beauty: for the way they support our economy, protect the climate and connect communities (although that view from the top never gets old).
And yet, woodland and forest creation in the Borders is stalling – but not for lack of ambition.
Despite the region being central to the Scottish Forestry Regional Strategic Woodland Creation Project, forestry professionals are increasingly frustrated by persistent local tensions which time and again derail projects.
Take the Stobo Hope project just outside Peebles, or the Todrig woodland scheme near Hawick.
The former intended to plant a commercial forest for climate mitigation, but was halted because of legal challenge from locals – despite thousands of trees already in the ground. The latter is headed for the same fate, with community groups arguing it poses a “risk to biodiversity and community”.
These aren’t isolated incidents, underlining a broader sense of cooling investment in Scottish forestry. Across both projects – and countless others in Scotland – one sticking point persists: the public consultation.
At Todrig, locals said decisions were made before they had a say. In their words, public consultations across Scotland are a “sham” and woodland creation processes “largely pay lip service to community involvement and consultation”.
And opponents at Stobo spoke up only at the eleventh hour. Skipping the earlier engagement offered at the design stage, meant their central concern – balancing commercial planting with native species – was never addressed.
Done well, public consultations build trust and clear obstacles. Done poorly, they can lead to deadlock in projects and, when combined with grant cuts and uncertain government support, put off potential investors.
So, when it comes to considering approaches to public consultation, how should you branch out?
Firstly, public consultations must engage all key stakeholders early in the process, including the local community. This means stakeholders feel fully involved and constructive relationships are built from the beginning, reducing the chance of prolonged or last minute barriers.
Map out all those likely to be affected and contact them directly, hang leaflets in local hubs, and advertise consultation details in local social media groups.
Secondly, consultations should offer a productive forum for engagement, with participants feeling heard. Input and questions should be invited – whether they can be answered immediately or not. It’s important to show how feedback will be acted on, and provide a way for additional comments to be shared elsewhere.
Finally, messages must be carefully crafted and tailored. Potential or known grievances should be incorporated and jargon that makes the project feel wooden (sorry) removed. For locals, climate benefits of woodland and forestry expansion will often feel abstract compared to the immediate impact on wildlife and landscape. And visuals make plans more accessible than technical documents alone.
Consider who should land these messages, too. Someone seen as distant from the community, physically or figuratively, won’t cut it.
This isn’t a magic formula, but getting your communications right in these situations could lead to constructive resolutions, prevent tensions escalating into lengthy legal action, and increase landowner and investor confidence.
Something must change. We can’t afford to continue falling dramatically short of national planting targets because the forest can’t be seen for the trees (last one I promise). At the same time, a global timber shortage is looming, obstructing housebuilding while housing crises deepen.
I know first-hand how emotive this subject is, and the future of forestry in the Borders depends as much on building trust and constructive dialogue with local communities as it does on government clarity, technical plans and financial models.