The findings of the review group into the Department of Agriculture’s response to ash dieback disease have been broadly welcomed by forestry stakeholders, in particular ash plantation owners led by the Limerick and Tipperary Woodland Owners (LTWO) group.
“This report has vindicated our stance on ash dieback from the outset,” said LTWO chair Simon White.
However, he cautioned that “owners of diseased plantations will not enter the ash reconstitution scheme unless Minister [of state Pippa] Hackett presents clear timelines on the review implementation, along with specific compensation”.
In a detailed 28-page review, the authors – Dr Matthew Crowe, Jerry Grant and Jo O’Hara – outline the background to the disease and research findings into funding possibilities. They also consulted with owners of diseased plantations before making 13 recommendations.
During the consultation process the authors state that “the sense of despondency, shock, sadness and grief for the losses from the disease was palpable”.
They are scathing about the response by the Department of Agriculture to the disease.
“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 write.
“Furthermore, from 2018 onwards, the Department appears to have stepped back from its leadership role as it moved from disease eradication to disease management.
“Taking two years to review the scheme, albeit with public and stakeholder consultations, was far too long and had the effect of stalling any momentum that had been built up.”
National emergency
The review’s recommendations emphasise the need for ash dieback “to be treated as a national emergency requiring a State-led national and rapid coordinated response”. They propose the establishment of a taskforce, led by the Department, while acknowledging “the disproportionate impact of diseased ash on confidence in Irish forestry” which will require the reestablishment of ash plantations “with forest resilience as a core objective”.
While the recommendations do not mention compensation specifically the following proposals refer to grants and payments to owners of diseased plantations:
It should be made clearer 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 current clearance grant of €2,000 per hectare (excluding VAT) appears reasonable in the main, but additional ‘exceptional costs’ should be considered for particularly challenging sites.Re-establishment and maintenance costs should be reviewed for all ash sites, taking account of the need for more intensive and regular maintenance due to the particular challenges associated with re-establishment.A bespoke ash dieback re-establishment annual payment is required. The payment should be consistent with the general rates available under the new Forestry Programme.The Department should explore the potential for a one-off ex gratia payment to be paid to each landowner as recognition of the absence of an effective scheme between 2018 and 2023.The review refers to compensation difficulties that may arise due to EU State Aid rules:
“Whilst the rules outlined in section 2.1.3 [of State Aid rules] are very specific in limiting the payment of aid for restoration from damage by disease, there are other sections of the chapter which may enable other mechanisms for the future (eg in relation to mutual insurance funds, processing and marketing or co-operative action).”
As one forestry consultant commented, “it would be ironic that having prevented the Department from banning ash seedling imports, which led to the disease, the Commission could now use State Aid rules to prohibit compensation”.
Missed opportunities
White said that “the Department missed repeated opportunities to introduce a compensation scheme as the State Aid rules which uncoupled forestry from other schemes, were only introduced in 2022, 10 years after ash dieback was detected”. He said it was clear that the Department “never seriously engaged with the EU on ash dieback”.
The review on ash dieback proposes that the disease "be treated as a national emergency requiring a State-led national and rapid coordinated response". \ Donal Magner
The review recommends that “the Department should re-examine articles 494-633 of Communication of the Commission 2022 485/1 to identify the broadest possible scope for the required support to resolve the crisis, mitigate the risks of future tree diseases, and achieve the objective of re-establishing the forestry potential of these lands”.
Regarding replanting ash plantations, the review proposes that “it must be more clearly communicated that plantation owners are eligible for all available schemes in the new Forestry Programme”.
The authors stress the need for “a simplified approval process… for site clearance with appropriate assessments or any other complex assessments conducted by the dedicated Department team associated with the taskforce”.
The reaction to the review is largely positive but its implementation has been questioned not only by Simon White but many other stakeholders.
“As well as providing a pathway to necessary recompense to impacted owners of ash plantations, this review can also be the foundation for restoring trust in afforestation among farmers,” said Paddy Bruton, Forestry Services.
“This will only happen if the Department implements all of the recommendations quickly,” he added.
“The minister should set an immediate deadline for the recommendations to be implemented.
“This cannot end up like the implementation plan for Mackinnon.”
Olive Leavy, of the Irish Forest Owners, said its membership welcomed the review findings.
“We echo the comments of the authors that speed and urgency is of the essence, as we await an implementation plan. We call on the minister to gain agreement from Government for compensation,” she said.
“The speed at which the Government responds on the foot of this report will be critical to rebuilding trust and confidence in forestry”, said Jason Fleming, chair of the IFA forestry group.
“The speed and effectiveness of implementation will be fundamental to how farmers judge the attractiveness of forestry as a land use,” he added.
“There are major lessons to be learned from this comprehensive review but speed of implementation is now vital,” said Pat O’Sullivan, technical director, Society of Irish Foresters.
“It does not reflect well on the Department, so it’s important to now consider the establishment of an independent Forestry Development Agency,” he maintained.
Paddy Bruton agrees with the need for an FDA.
“There is widespread support for such an agency not least because a business-as-usual approach will not be sufficient to restore confidence in the forestry programme.”
The findings of the review group into the Department of Agriculture’s response to ash dieback disease have been broadly welcomed by forestry stakeholders, in particular ash plantation owners led by the Limerick and Tipperary Woodland Owners (LTWO) group.
“This report has vindicated our stance on ash dieback from the outset,” said LTWO chair Simon White.
However, he cautioned that “owners of diseased plantations will not enter the ash reconstitution scheme unless Minister [of state Pippa] Hackett presents clear timelines on the review implementation, along with specific compensation”.
In a detailed 28-page review, the authors – Dr Matthew Crowe, Jerry Grant and Jo O’Hara – outline the background to the disease and research findings into funding possibilities. They also consulted with owners of diseased plantations before making 13 recommendations.
During the consultation process the authors state that “the sense of despondency, shock, sadness and grief for the losses from the disease was palpable”.
They are scathing about the response by the Department of Agriculture to the disease.
“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 write.
“Furthermore, from 2018 onwards, the Department appears to have stepped back from its leadership role as it moved from disease eradication to disease management.
“Taking two years to review the scheme, albeit with public and stakeholder consultations, was far too long and had the effect of stalling any momentum that had been built up.”
National emergency
The review’s recommendations emphasise the need for ash dieback “to be treated as a national emergency requiring a State-led national and rapid coordinated response”. They propose the establishment of a taskforce, led by the Department, while acknowledging “the disproportionate impact of diseased ash on confidence in Irish forestry” which will require the reestablishment of ash plantations “with forest resilience as a core objective”.
While the recommendations do not mention compensation specifically the following proposals refer to grants and payments to owners of diseased plantations:
It should be made clearer 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 current clearance grant of €2,000 per hectare (excluding VAT) appears reasonable in the main, but additional ‘exceptional costs’ should be considered for particularly challenging sites.Re-establishment and maintenance costs should be reviewed for all ash sites, taking account of the need for more intensive and regular maintenance due to the particular challenges associated with re-establishment.A bespoke ash dieback re-establishment annual payment is required. The payment should be consistent with the general rates available under the new Forestry Programme.The Department should explore the potential for a one-off ex gratia payment to be paid to each landowner as recognition of the absence of an effective scheme between 2018 and 2023.The review refers to compensation difficulties that may arise due to EU State Aid rules:
“Whilst the rules outlined in section 2.1.3 [of State Aid rules] are very specific in limiting the payment of aid for restoration from damage by disease, there are other sections of the chapter which may enable other mechanisms for the future (eg in relation to mutual insurance funds, processing and marketing or co-operative action).”
As one forestry consultant commented, “it would be ironic that having prevented the Department from banning ash seedling imports, which led to the disease, the Commission could now use State Aid rules to prohibit compensation”.
Missed opportunities
White said that “the Department missed repeated opportunities to introduce a compensation scheme as the State Aid rules which uncoupled forestry from other schemes, were only introduced in 2022, 10 years after ash dieback was detected”. He said it was clear that the Department “never seriously engaged with the EU on ash dieback”.
The review on ash dieback proposes that the disease "be treated as a national emergency requiring a State-led national and rapid coordinated response". \ Donal Magner
The review recommends that “the Department should re-examine articles 494-633 of Communication of the Commission 2022 485/1 to identify the broadest possible scope for the required support to resolve the crisis, mitigate the risks of future tree diseases, and achieve the objective of re-establishing the forestry potential of these lands”.
Regarding replanting ash plantations, the review proposes that “it must be more clearly communicated that plantation owners are eligible for all available schemes in the new Forestry Programme”.
The authors stress the need for “a simplified approval process… for site clearance with appropriate assessments or any other complex assessments conducted by the dedicated Department team associated with the taskforce”.
The reaction to the review is largely positive but its implementation has been questioned not only by Simon White but many other stakeholders.
“As well as providing a pathway to necessary recompense to impacted owners of ash plantations, this review can also be the foundation for restoring trust in afforestation among farmers,” said Paddy Bruton, Forestry Services.
“This will only happen if the Department implements all of the recommendations quickly,” he added.
“The minister should set an immediate deadline for the recommendations to be implemented.
“This cannot end up like the implementation plan for Mackinnon.”
Olive Leavy, of the Irish Forest Owners, said its membership welcomed the review findings.
“We echo the comments of the authors that speed and urgency is of the essence, as we await an implementation plan. We call on the minister to gain agreement from Government for compensation,” she said.
“The speed at which the Government responds on the foot of this report will be critical to rebuilding trust and confidence in forestry”, said Jason Fleming, chair of the IFA forestry group.
“The speed and effectiveness of implementation will be fundamental to how farmers judge the attractiveness of forestry as a land use,” he added.
“There are major lessons to be learned from this comprehensive review but speed of implementation is now vital,” said Pat O’Sullivan, technical director, Society of Irish Foresters.
“It does not reflect well on the Department, so it’s important to now consider the establishment of an independent Forestry Development Agency,” he maintained.
Paddy Bruton agrees with the need for an FDA.
“There is widespread support for such an agency not least because a business-as-usual approach will not be sufficient to restore confidence in the forestry programme.”
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: