EIR/202500462733 · FOI/EIR · partially withheld
Scottish Forestry unlawful felling data: EIR release
Information requested
Could I please ask for the following information:
1. The number of investigations conducted by Scottish Forestry into unlawful felling under Section 23 of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 since the commencement of the Act on 1 April 2019.
2. Of those, the numbers subsequently reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).
Could this please be broken down by year and conservancy area?
Response
As the information you have requested is ‘environmental information’ for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA.
This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request.
1. The number of investigations conducted by Scottish Forestry into unlawful felling under Section 23 of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 since the commencement of the Act on 1 April 2019.
Since April 2019 we had 631 reports of alleged unauthorised felling under Section 23 of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018. It is important to notice that not all reported incidents necessitate a complex investigation as exemptions may be evident from the outset. Since all reported alleged unauthorised felling cases are recorded and processed within a single system, we are unable to provide nationwide data for investigations into unlawful felling that excludes the more straightforward cases.
2. Of those, the numbers subsequently reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).
As a Specialist Reporting Agency, Scottish Forestry can submit reports of offences under Section 24 of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 Act directly to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). Since the Act came into effect, we have reported 2 cases for this offence. One in Central Conservancy in 2021 and one in Grampian Conservancy in 2024.
The Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 Act gives us powers to take enforcement action against a landowner without needing to submit a report to the COPFS. In instances of unauthorised felling, these powers include ‘Restocking Directions’ (S.36) - which require the replanting of felled trees - and also the registration of ‘Notices to comply’ (S.38).
About FOI
The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.
Contact Please quote the FOI reference Central Correspondence Unit Email: contactus@gov.scot Phone: 0300 244 4000 The Scottish Government St Andrew's House Regent Road Edinburgh EH1 3DG
Detected exemption language
The number of investigations conducted by Scottish Forestry into unlawful felling under Section 23 of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 since the commencement of the Act on 1 April 2019. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA. This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes.
Attachments
No attachments found.