The continued difficulty in getting previously unenclosed productive land approved for afforestation continues to be a major problem in achieving a sustainable planting programme, as it is a major disincentive for farmers in putting forestry packages together.
Motivating the Forest Service to be less rigid with new information, including promoting forestry as an environmental plus rather than minus, is a challenge to be met.
Other challenges include information, administration and promotion.
Resource information
There still may not be adequate dissemination of information about the land resource across the sector, in easily understood terms, especially broken down to local or regional levels.
At this stage, there should be a comprehensive database available, by forestry suitability class, current land use, farmers’ attitude and genuine land availability constraints, from the numerous reports, surveys and studies.
The planting programme is the backbone of the industry
This information could surely be made available to stakeholders, advisers and inspectors on, say, a county basis, so that land owners could be encouraged and cases could be progressed and reviewed in the knowledge of available land. A fully documented land database may speed processing to allow more informed outcomes and avoid unnecessary or perceived constraints.
Administration
Administration blockages have been reported often enough to identify where and how they can be alleviated. Could performance indicators be implemented, based on the available resource, whereby monthly achievements for the various stages of the approval process and area planted were compared with yearly targets? These might be allocated to counties or regions. A senior manager should be appointed in the Forest Service to specifically oversee and be answerable for the afforestation programme, to analyse problems and progress in the context of national policy and objectives.
Culture
There may still be some ‘cultural resistance’ to afforestation at local level in the administration of the programme where forestry may be regarded as a less acceptable land use activity to say conservation, leaving the land fallow (wilding) or marginal agriculture, with a continued reluctance to support planting uncultivated or previously defined better-quality unenclosed areas.
In this regard, the benefits of the programme in terms of carbon storage, water management, diversity and health, along with the growth of a clean renewable resource, may need to be further promoted in the parent departments involved in land use policy.
Support of professionals from European countries with strong wood cultures and backed up by the carbon storage agencies might be enlisted, as well as media support.
Impacts and negative feedback
As the programme shrinks, adverse factors could become self-generating should structures break down and resources and investment dry up. The severe downstream impacts of a collapse in the programme will have to be quantified and highlighted.
Some years ago, scenarios resulting from different levels of annual afforestation were examined in relation to the sustainability of the sector and at current decreasing rates of planting, the sector is heading close to the worst case.
Policy makers and implementers will have to be woken up to the fact that they could be the first in the history of the State who have not measured up to achieving a goal which has been pursued even throughout the State’s most difficult economic periods.
The situation could be the more parlous in the light of the industry’s production and service employment already in place. The wood-processing sector could be encouraged to make representation as impacts of afforestation collapse will eventually trickle down to them.
Finance
The sector is well versed in making the case for grant levels and in promoting new and amended schemes. The only point here is to push for additional afforestation schemes in addition to and not replacing the main planting programme.
The message
The benefits of forestry over a wide range of environmentally sustainable activities are proven, but frequently forestry is just ignored. For example, the contribution of forestry in relation to renewable energy and flood control is acknowledged globally, but receives little coverage in Ireland.
Negative publicity also accompanied the recent water quality report on Irish waterways, in which commentators bracketed forestry along with agriculture and waste effluent as pollution sources, although comparative levels are minuscule.
This type of exposure occurs despite the benefits outlined for forestry in Departmental advertising and informed articles on forestry. This points to the need of a wider response when these issues arise.
Although forestry has been a success story and a vibrant sector has been established, it is still vulnerable and has not reached the critical mass needed to sustain it. Coillte’s production has plateaued and the company may shrink further as a land contributor to the sector.
The planting programme is the backbone of the industry which, if damaged, can cause great harm short and long term to its components. Efforts are being made to protect the infrastructure supporting the establishment and management of forests, but this may not be enough if politicians, policy formers and regulators are not motivated to face the issue.
The recent Irish Farmers Journal article emphasised the need for a new and urgent examination of the role of afforestation in Irish forestry. This, along with some of the factors discussed here, should be part of that discussion.
Dr Gerhardt Gallagher is a forestry consultant and co-author of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine report Land Availability for Afforestation, as well as Trees, Forests and the Law in Ireland, Code of Best Forest Practice and Growing for the Future. Read more
Forestry programme needs a kick-start
Afforestation programme launched for 2017-18
Full coverage of our forestry focus
The continued difficulty in getting previously unenclosed productive land approved for afforestation continues to be a major problem in achieving a sustainable planting programme, as it is a major disincentive for farmers in putting forestry packages together.
Motivating the Forest Service to be less rigid with new information, including promoting forestry as an environmental plus rather than minus, is a challenge to be met.
Other challenges include information, administration and promotion.
Resource information
There still may not be adequate dissemination of information about the land resource across the sector, in easily understood terms, especially broken down to local or regional levels.
At this stage, there should be a comprehensive database available, by forestry suitability class, current land use, farmers’ attitude and genuine land availability constraints, from the numerous reports, surveys and studies.
The planting programme is the backbone of the industry
This information could surely be made available to stakeholders, advisers and inspectors on, say, a county basis, so that land owners could be encouraged and cases could be progressed and reviewed in the knowledge of available land. A fully documented land database may speed processing to allow more informed outcomes and avoid unnecessary or perceived constraints.
Administration
Administration blockages have been reported often enough to identify where and how they can be alleviated. Could performance indicators be implemented, based on the available resource, whereby monthly achievements for the various stages of the approval process and area planted were compared with yearly targets? These might be allocated to counties or regions. A senior manager should be appointed in the Forest Service to specifically oversee and be answerable for the afforestation programme, to analyse problems and progress in the context of national policy and objectives.
Culture
There may still be some ‘cultural resistance’ to afforestation at local level in the administration of the programme where forestry may be regarded as a less acceptable land use activity to say conservation, leaving the land fallow (wilding) or marginal agriculture, with a continued reluctance to support planting uncultivated or previously defined better-quality unenclosed areas.
In this regard, the benefits of the programme in terms of carbon storage, water management, diversity and health, along with the growth of a clean renewable resource, may need to be further promoted in the parent departments involved in land use policy.
Support of professionals from European countries with strong wood cultures and backed up by the carbon storage agencies might be enlisted, as well as media support.
Impacts and negative feedback
As the programme shrinks, adverse factors could become self-generating should structures break down and resources and investment dry up. The severe downstream impacts of a collapse in the programme will have to be quantified and highlighted.
Some years ago, scenarios resulting from different levels of annual afforestation were examined in relation to the sustainability of the sector and at current decreasing rates of planting, the sector is heading close to the worst case.
Policy makers and implementers will have to be woken up to the fact that they could be the first in the history of the State who have not measured up to achieving a goal which has been pursued even throughout the State’s most difficult economic periods.
The situation could be the more parlous in the light of the industry’s production and service employment already in place. The wood-processing sector could be encouraged to make representation as impacts of afforestation collapse will eventually trickle down to them.
Finance
The sector is well versed in making the case for grant levels and in promoting new and amended schemes. The only point here is to push for additional afforestation schemes in addition to and not replacing the main planting programme.
The message
The benefits of forestry over a wide range of environmentally sustainable activities are proven, but frequently forestry is just ignored. For example, the contribution of forestry in relation to renewable energy and flood control is acknowledged globally, but receives little coverage in Ireland.
Negative publicity also accompanied the recent water quality report on Irish waterways, in which commentators bracketed forestry along with agriculture and waste effluent as pollution sources, although comparative levels are minuscule.
This type of exposure occurs despite the benefits outlined for forestry in Departmental advertising and informed articles on forestry. This points to the need of a wider response when these issues arise.
Although forestry has been a success story and a vibrant sector has been established, it is still vulnerable and has not reached the critical mass needed to sustain it. Coillte’s production has plateaued and the company may shrink further as a land contributor to the sector.
The planting programme is the backbone of the industry which, if damaged, can cause great harm short and long term to its components. Efforts are being made to protect the infrastructure supporting the establishment and management of forests, but this may not be enough if politicians, policy formers and regulators are not motivated to face the issue.
The recent Irish Farmers Journal article emphasised the need for a new and urgent examination of the role of afforestation in Irish forestry. This, along with some of the factors discussed here, should be part of that discussion.
Dr Gerhardt Gallagher is a forestry consultant and co-author of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine report Land Availability for Afforestation, as well as Trees, Forests and the Law in Ireland, Code of Best Forest Practice and Growing for the Future. Read more
Forestry programme needs a kick-start
Afforestation programme launched for 2017-18
Full coverage of our forestry focus
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: