Views on performance of afforestation programme

We asked a number of stakeholders about the performance of the afforestation programme which is likely to fall well short of the 7,140ha target unless a major planting drive takes place in late autumn and winter. We sought reasons why performance is disappointing and what can be done to restore the programme. The following is a summary of their views.

Department of Agriculture and Forest Service

‘‘It is important to note that targets have largely been achieved in 2015 and 2016 and exceeded in fact when both years are combined. Early figures for 2017, however, would indicate that this year’s target of 7,140ha may not be reached.

‘‘The Department is committed to doing everything it can to achieve the Forestry Programme targets. While payments are down on last year, planting approvals to the end of June are ahead of where they were at the same time last year, up 562ha on last year’s figure. In the month of June alone, 944ha received technical approval compared with 654ha for the same month last year. This shows that there is genuine interest in the scheme.

‘‘The Department is engaged in a number of initiatives with the sector to see what more can be done to increase uptake of the scheme. The mid-term review currently under way is examining measures and submissions received from a range of stakeholders to identify opportunities to increase scheme participation.

‘‘The Department alongside Teagasc will continue to roll out its promotion campaign for the afforestation programme.’’

Pat Collins chair, IFA farm forestry committee

‘‘The figures from the current programme show that the number of farmers planting have decreased significantly. The question that needs to be asked is whether farmers are disengaging from forestry as a land use option or is the decrease as a result of increasing restrictions acting as a barrier to planting productive land.

‘‘I have been approached by farmers who planted this year and are very disappointed with the forest premium they have received as a result of the increased unplanted setback areas and environmental requirements which have reduced the productive area. Many of these farmers did not realise that they would not receive a forest premium on all the land they were obligated to set aside for environmental enhancement. They were not aware that any land set aside beyond the 15% Area for Biodiversity Enhancement (ABE) payable under the Afforestation Scheme would receive no forest premium.

‘‘They are very angry, not only because they lost out on annual forest premium payments but their forest area and future earnings were reduced. The negative experience of these farmers with the afforestation scheme, means they are unlikely to enter forestry again. I believe that until farmers are paid on all land the number of farmers will continue to decline.’’

Daragh Little chair, Irish Forestry and Forest Products Association and Veon Ltd

‘‘Afforestation including broadleaved planting has underperformed and this has not been picked up by diverse conifers. Planting has focused on spruce instead.

‘‘We believe the reasons for this are principally around the transfer of risk to companies, foresters and forest owners over the last decade and the type of land that is available to plant. Successful establishment of broadleaves on marginal agricultural land does not work under the current business model as well as being silviculturally incorrect.

‘‘Risk is now too high. When the afforestation policy began, it was appreciated then that in order to encourage landowners to plant they must be supported through a suite of risk reducing measures. Now, the opposite is the case as penalties, lack of reconstitution and bureaucratic mentality are to the fore.

‘‘The IFFPA believes that afforestation rates need to increase by 20% because foresters spend far more time trying to sell the schemes for less reward. Grants must reflect this effort. Forest Service doesn’t appreciate this, preferring to spend promotional money in a haphazard and unmeasured way. Forestry is best sold face to face by foresters.’’

Padraig Egan general manager, SWS Forestry

‘‘The afforestation programme needs a project manager with the power to ensure that targets are met. Approval timelines are far too long. The solution is to reduce the time files spend on desks going through the approval process. In addition to this, each inspector has to be given a planting target in his or her area.

The programme lacks an effective marketing campaign by the Department which requires a defined budget to target the relevant audience.

Land availability will continue to be a major issue which can be partially solved by innovative forestry schemes on unenclosed and environmentally restricted lands.

Paddy Bruton managing director, Forestry Services Ltd

‘‘We have lost many of the farmer owners with land suitable for planting. Competition from other agricultural schemes results in barriers to the forestry scheme. Approvals for afforestation are too slow in being issued and rules of the scheme too rigid with insufficient in-built flexibility, leading to a result that less than 50% of land that is approved for planting actually gets planted.

‘‘Few, if any, of the excellent COFORD Land Availability for Afforestation report recommendations, launched a year and a half ago, have been implemented. The 20% unenclosed rule remains in place even though the environmental requirements and land classification procedures have been introduced.

‘‘The land owner interested in planting land should be at the centre of the process, not the least respected stakeholder.

‘‘Every stakeholder has to work to common objectives which should contain an aim to achieve minimal planting targets by Forest Service districts as set out in the current forestry programme. The minister must drive this.

‘‘Most marketing of the afforestation scheme is carried out by the forestry companies.

‘‘This has to be supported by a broadscale television, radio and social media promotional campaign outlining the benefits of forestry.’’

John O’Reilly chief executive, Green Belt Ltd

‘‘The emphasis is on land exclusion and penalties; on what you cannot do rather than what you can do.

‘‘Over 50% of farmers who receive technical approval do not plant often because of delays in receiving approval or because of conditions that are too stringent.

‘‘For example, a Form 1 (application) submitted by a Green Belt client who wishes to plant 26ha of land contained an historical, but now redundant, curlew nest. The farmer is told the process will be delayed as an expensive ecological assessments and ornithological survey to get approval is required, which he accepts.

‘‘The eventual approval states that 5ha or 19% of the site, will be designated as a ‘curlew habitat’ in case a nesting curlew returns.

‘‘The approval states that this area can be used as biodiversity but as the maximum amount of biodiversity within any site is 15% he is expected to forego premia on the balance and productive forestry on almost one-fifth of the site. The solution here is to provide premium payments for the 26ha.’’

John Kavanagh nursery manager, None so Hardy Nurseries

‘‘Nursery production requires a three-year cycle from seed collection to eventual plant delivery to our clients so we need continuity in the afforestation programme. We are geared to provide plants in a planned way throughout the planting season ideally between January and May and November to December.

‘‘As a matter of extreme urgency we need to address the proposal of monthly targets throughout the year to assess afforestation performance during the planting season to monitor planting approvals. Timing is important. For example, the least amount of Form 1s (applications) are submitted during the period April to June. This is reflective of the farming year and the business of foresters on the ground.

‘‘We need to get more Form 1s into the system now so that they are ready for approval in the autumn and ready for financial approval when we need them.’’