The shadow of ash dieback will remain over Irish forestry for many years, but there are opportunities now to assuage its negative impact. While the Ash Dieback Action Plan received a cautious welcome, the prevailing message was to get behind it and make it work.
The restoration of the destroyed forests requires a combined effort – State and private – in contrast to what happened in the past as outlined by Dr Matthew Crowe, Jerry Grant and Jo O’Hara in their Review of Support for Farmers Impacted by Ash Dieback, which was carried out last September.
“From 2018 onwards, the response of the State was flawed and ineffective and clearly did not meet the needs of forest owners – or society as a whole,” they wrote.
If the lessons from that dark period are learned, then the sector can move on.
While the Ash Dieback Action Plan falls short of what ash owners expected, their response has been generous, but the desire to make it work needs to be complemented by the Department.
The review by Crowe, Grant and O’Hara should be obligatory reading by Department officials. The announcement of the action plan by the minister without consulting the taskforce – established in February – suggests that a number of key review recommendations may already be forgotten, not least their findings of a “lack of transparency, negligible customer service and poor communication from the Department of Agriculture”.
Short term
The taskforce – when it meets – will tease out a number of short-term issues that have been raised already about the action plan. Ash owners expected that the €5,000/ha Climate Action Performance Payment (CAPP) would be paid once the damaged crop was replaced. That this will be paid out in three instalment over four or more years is totally unacceptable.
The very least the Department should do is to pay 75% on completion of work with the balance when the crop is established, as is the norm.
The €2,000 ground clearance payment is clearly not sufficient (see panel) and will result in further victimisation for ash owners, if not changed.
The damage caused by ash dieback is particularly painful, as most of the plantations are located on good agricultural land and the potential earning from hurley ash and furniture were enormous compared with other broadleaf species and many coniferous species.
The question on what kind of forests will emerge from the vestiges of ash dieback is an open one. But allowing forest owners to choose the forest type (FT) that suits their own particular needs was a wise one as no two damaged forests are the same in terms of size, age and soil type.
There is still huge potential on these sites. They have soil and site potential to grow the finest crops of native, naturalised or commercial coniferous species.
They also have potential for agroforestry with the capability to combine forestry with agriculture, sheep cattle and even dairy farming.
However, maintenance will be challenging, especially during the establishment phase as most sites will experience vigorous vegetation growth, including ash suckers.
Long term
Long-term issues need to be addressed if farmers’ confidence in particular is to be restored. For example, current forest policy to provide farmers with sufficient compensation to build back their herd with mature animals when disease strikes does not apply to forestry. The harsh reality that forestry is treated differently to other farm enterprises, in a crisis situation, needs to be addressed.
“Farmers need certainty in relation to long-term decisions,” maintained the Forest Land Availability Implementation Group (FLAIG) Report published by COFORD in 2018.
“A reforestation scheme should give some confidence to the landowners that they are being supported long-term in their land use change,” it added.
The report stated that consideration could be given to the establishment of a state insurance scheme for forestry. “State provision is justified on the basis of insurance market failures in the forestry sector,” the FLAIG report maintained.
The most glaring aspect of ash dieback was the absence of a crisis plan especially in relation to felling licences. In European countries, felling of diseased and windblown trees begins immediately after the damage is detected, while Irish forest owners wait for years for a licence.
Issues such as a crisis plan, national insurance and equity in disease compensation can only be addressed by an independent forestry development agency. This has been evident every year since ash dieback was detected in 2012.
Site clearance grant cannot be funded
by firewood sales
All forestry companies interviewed by the Irish Farmers Journal have said the grant of €2,000/ha for clearing ash sites is too low.
The ash dieback review did say that the “current clearance grant of €2,000 per hectare (ex VAT) appears reasonable in the main,” but also stated the “additional ‘exceptional costs’ should be considered for particularly challenging sites”.
While most forestry companies contacted said that the bulk of sites could be cleared in the €2,500 to €5,599/ha range, extremely difficult sites could cost up to €7,000 to clear.
It now appears that where costs are running over €2,000, some farmers are supplementing losses incurred by forestry companies and contractors with income from firewood sales or chipping, which the independent review strictly opposed.
“It should be made clear that the cost of site clearance and regeneration should be borne by the State with any residual value from the timber remaining with the landowner,” the review stated.
There was unanimity among foresters that this item has to be discussed at the first taskforce meeting, as farmers are now having to unfairly top up an inadequate site clearance grant with the already paltry revenue from firewood.
Short-term issues
Inadequate €2,000/ha site clearance grant.€5,000 should be paid when site restored. Farmers should receive income from firewood.Long-term issues
Forest welfare should be treated similarly to animal welfare.Need for a State-private insurance scheme.Need for a forest crisis plan.Sector needs a forestry development agency.April forestry licences down to lowest level this year for afforestation and felling
Afforestation and felling licences issued for April fell to the lowest monthly performance so far this year.
Only 222ha of afforestation licences were approved compared with 268ha in March, 326 in February and 351ha in January.
The average monthly licences are well below the 700ha to 800ha required. It now seems that the annual programme will struggle to achieve 20% of the 8,000ha in the minister’s strategy target. Just like March, the licences issued for the final week slumped as consistency of approvals is a major issue.
Two licences were issued for the final week in April, bringing the total for the month to 36.
The average planting size for the month was 6.2ha, while the average so far this year is 7.6ha.
In addition to the dashboard data for January to April, “the Department has processed 146 (1,158ha) applications already approved under the Forestry Programme 2014-2020 that hadn’t commenced planting and have now opted into the new Forestry Programme 2023- 2027, a spokesperson said. Felling licences were issued for 1,470ha, which are forecast to yield 357,000m3 – this is a below-average return.
So far this year, felling licences have been issued for 7,302ha to yield 2.07m m3 compared with 12,052ha yielding 3.3m3 for the same period last year. So far this year, road licences have been issued for 110km which is marginally lower than 2002.
The shadow of ash dieback will remain over Irish forestry for many years, but there are opportunities now to assuage its negative impact. While the Ash Dieback Action Plan received a cautious welcome, the prevailing message was to get behind it and make it work.
The restoration of the destroyed forests requires a combined effort – State and private – in contrast to what happened in the past as outlined by Dr Matthew Crowe, Jerry Grant and Jo O’Hara in their Review of Support for Farmers Impacted by Ash Dieback, which was carried out last September.
“From 2018 onwards, the response of the State was flawed and ineffective and clearly did not meet the needs of forest owners – or society as a whole,” they wrote.
If the lessons from that dark period are learned, then the sector can move on.
While the Ash Dieback Action Plan falls short of what ash owners expected, their response has been generous, but the desire to make it work needs to be complemented by the Department.
The review by Crowe, Grant and O’Hara should be obligatory reading by Department officials. The announcement of the action plan by the minister without consulting the taskforce – established in February – suggests that a number of key review recommendations may already be forgotten, not least their findings of a “lack of transparency, negligible customer service and poor communication from the Department of Agriculture”.
Short term
The taskforce – when it meets – will tease out a number of short-term issues that have been raised already about the action plan. Ash owners expected that the €5,000/ha Climate Action Performance Payment (CAPP) would be paid once the damaged crop was replaced. That this will be paid out in three instalment over four or more years is totally unacceptable.
The very least the Department should do is to pay 75% on completion of work with the balance when the crop is established, as is the norm.
The €2,000 ground clearance payment is clearly not sufficient (see panel) and will result in further victimisation for ash owners, if not changed.
The damage caused by ash dieback is particularly painful, as most of the plantations are located on good agricultural land and the potential earning from hurley ash and furniture were enormous compared with other broadleaf species and many coniferous species.
The question on what kind of forests will emerge from the vestiges of ash dieback is an open one. But allowing forest owners to choose the forest type (FT) that suits their own particular needs was a wise one as no two damaged forests are the same in terms of size, age and soil type.
There is still huge potential on these sites. They have soil and site potential to grow the finest crops of native, naturalised or commercial coniferous species.
They also have potential for agroforestry with the capability to combine forestry with agriculture, sheep cattle and even dairy farming.
However, maintenance will be challenging, especially during the establishment phase as most sites will experience vigorous vegetation growth, including ash suckers.
Long term
Long-term issues need to be addressed if farmers’ confidence in particular is to be restored. For example, current forest policy to provide farmers with sufficient compensation to build back their herd with mature animals when disease strikes does not apply to forestry. The harsh reality that forestry is treated differently to other farm enterprises, in a crisis situation, needs to be addressed.
“Farmers need certainty in relation to long-term decisions,” maintained the Forest Land Availability Implementation Group (FLAIG) Report published by COFORD in 2018.
“A reforestation scheme should give some confidence to the landowners that they are being supported long-term in their land use change,” it added.
The report stated that consideration could be given to the establishment of a state insurance scheme for forestry. “State provision is justified on the basis of insurance market failures in the forestry sector,” the FLAIG report maintained.
The most glaring aspect of ash dieback was the absence of a crisis plan especially in relation to felling licences. In European countries, felling of diseased and windblown trees begins immediately after the damage is detected, while Irish forest owners wait for years for a licence.
Issues such as a crisis plan, national insurance and equity in disease compensation can only be addressed by an independent forestry development agency. This has been evident every year since ash dieback was detected in 2012.
Site clearance grant cannot be funded
by firewood sales
All forestry companies interviewed by the Irish Farmers Journal have said the grant of €2,000/ha for clearing ash sites is too low.
The ash dieback review did say that the “current clearance grant of €2,000 per hectare (ex VAT) appears reasonable in the main,” but also stated the “additional ‘exceptional costs’ should be considered for particularly challenging sites”.
While most forestry companies contacted said that the bulk of sites could be cleared in the €2,500 to €5,599/ha range, extremely difficult sites could cost up to €7,000 to clear.
It now appears that where costs are running over €2,000, some farmers are supplementing losses incurred by forestry companies and contractors with income from firewood sales or chipping, which the independent review strictly opposed.
“It should be made clear that the cost of site clearance and regeneration should be borne by the State with any residual value from the timber remaining with the landowner,” the review stated.
There was unanimity among foresters that this item has to be discussed at the first taskforce meeting, as farmers are now having to unfairly top up an inadequate site clearance grant with the already paltry revenue from firewood.
Short-term issues
Inadequate €2,000/ha site clearance grant.€5,000 should be paid when site restored. Farmers should receive income from firewood.Long-term issues
Forest welfare should be treated similarly to animal welfare.Need for a State-private insurance scheme.Need for a forest crisis plan.Sector needs a forestry development agency.April forestry licences down to lowest level this year for afforestation and felling
Afforestation and felling licences issued for April fell to the lowest monthly performance so far this year.
Only 222ha of afforestation licences were approved compared with 268ha in March, 326 in February and 351ha in January.
The average monthly licences are well below the 700ha to 800ha required. It now seems that the annual programme will struggle to achieve 20% of the 8,000ha in the minister’s strategy target. Just like March, the licences issued for the final week slumped as consistency of approvals is a major issue.
Two licences were issued for the final week in April, bringing the total for the month to 36.
The average planting size for the month was 6.2ha, while the average so far this year is 7.6ha.
In addition to the dashboard data for January to April, “the Department has processed 146 (1,158ha) applications already approved under the Forestry Programme 2014-2020 that hadn’t commenced planting and have now opted into the new Forestry Programme 2023- 2027, a spokesperson said. Felling licences were issued for 1,470ha, which are forecast to yield 357,000m3 – this is a below-average return.
So far this year, felling licences have been issued for 7,302ha to yield 2.07m m3 compared with 12,052ha yielding 3.3m3 for the same period last year. So far this year, road licences have been issued for 110km which is marginally lower than 2002.
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: