STAND

What we discovered...

• We found that local stakeholders support upland treescape expansion, but the question of how much tree cover the landscape could support was more controversial.

• The current policy and regulatory environment do not necessarily promote the forms of treescape expansion which are acceptable to local stakeholders. Stakeholders typically preferred low-density treescapes, including those established through natural colonisation.
• Modelled future scenarios saw positive and negative planting outcomes. Positive outcomes included increased carbon sequestration, reduced surface run-off and more woodland birds; negative outcomes included reduced livestock numbers and fewer upland birds.
• Local stakeholders’ preferred extent of future tree cover is similar to ‘top‑down’ net zero pathways. However, there are some important exceptions, with some stakeholders favouring lower levels of tree cover.
• People’s relationship with the landscape’s historical context and their sense of place are important considerations in land use decisions and can support local stakeholder engagement.
• Stakeholders identified specific challenges such as skills gaps, bureaucratic grant application processes, uncoordinated and limited advice, and uncertain and insufficient long-term government funding. Stakeholders also highlighted a need for better support for natural colonisation and a more flexible approach to treescape expansion on designated sites.
• We recommend that more effective local stakeholder engagement and consultation is needed in policymaking to understand local barriers and challenges.