While praising aspects of the new Forestry Programme(2023-2027) recently, IFA president Tim Cullinan outlined two major barriers in achieving an 8,000ha afforestation programme.
He emphasised the risk factor facing farmers with forests and those contemplating forestry as a land use option.
While he welcomed “the return to the 20-year premium payment for farmers”, he pointed to ash dieback and the replanting obligation as major obstacles in getting farmers to re-engage with forestry.
“The reality is that many farmers no longer view forestry as a safe investment, as the risks associated with committing their land in perpetuity have become too great,” he said.
“The replanting obligation is the single greatest barrier to planting and must be reviewed if planting targets are to be met.”
Farmer confidence
Cullinan said ash dieback “has been hugely damaging to farmer confidence and has made many farmers wary of entering forestry under the current terms and conditions”.
He told Minister Hackett at the recent farm forestry conference that the IFA would engage with the Independent Review of Ash Dieback Scheme, but stressed the importance of achieving a favourable result for ash growers:
“Let me assure the Government that the outcome of the review and the recognition of the financial loss of farmers affected by ash dieback will be seen as a benchmark of their commitment to farmer planting and key to restoring farmer confidence in forestry,” he said.
Declining interest in forestry
There is little doubt that ash dieback and the replanting obligation contribute to farmers’ declining interest in forestry, according to Jason Fleming, IFA forestry committee chair.
“Ash dieback and the future potential threat of other damage, including the bark beetle, have increased the risk to forests,” he said. “The findings of the committee on ash dieback will be crucial in restoring confidence in forestry.”
He also believes that a relaxation of the replanting obligation would remove farmers’ objection to planting.
Both these issues – forest protection and the replanting obligation – have been addressed in the COFORD “Forest Land Availability Implementation Group (FLAIG) Report”.
COFORD’s conflicting views on the replanting obligation
COFORD’s 2018 FLAIG report adopted a flexible approach to the replanting obligation. “The requirement to replant has been identified in multiple surveys and studies as a barrier to afforestation,” it stated.
Financial support
It proposed the introduction of financial support for reforestation, “where additional measures are taken, over and above the replanting obligation”, such as the enhancement of the environment.
Some of these measures have been introduced in the new programme, which awaits State Aid approval.
The COFORD report acknowledged that while relaxing the replanting obligation would be challenging to implement, it “would reassure people and may positively impact on forested land values”, which decline after planting under the existing legislation.
“In reality, most afforested land provides only marginal returns in agriculture, and the high costs associated with returning to agricultural use makes this land use reversion unlikely,” the authors stated.
In reality, most afforested land provides only marginal returns in agriculture
“If the replanting commitment was relaxed, then the area of deforestation would have to be monitored and controlled to manage and understand its impact,” the report added.
The FLAIG report’s findings have not been debated, even within COFORD, as outlined in its 2022 publication “Forests and Wood Products, and Their Importance in Climate Change Mitigation”.
It stated: “Any loosening of the replanting obligation following clearfelling carries a risk of creating further deforestation and of potentially reducing the sink amounts to well below those indicated over the period 2021-2030.”
Contradictory view
This contradictory view of its own FLAIG report is disappointing and disingenuous. The land availability group’s findings were considered and were careful to ensure a relaxation of the replanting obligation would not cause deforestation.
For example, if Ireland is to achieve an average continuous 16,000ha annual afforestation programme by mid-century, as proposed by COFORD, how could an annual relaxation amounting to, say, 5% or 800ha cause deforestation?
A carefully monitored, flexible approach such as this would ensure a net annual forest increase of 15,200ha. This would surely be a better proposition than the 2,000ha currently achieved – with less than 400ha carried out by farmers?
It is likely that few would opt out of forestry, but a flexible approach could be a major boost to farmers’ confidence in having the option to change land use after final harvest in some circumstances, or after catastrophic damage.
COFORD on the need for a State forestry insurance scheme
Since 2009, reconstitution grant schemes were discontinued for fire-damaged forests.
Now, forest owners are expected to carry out their own fire insurance. However, there is no insurance available to cover windblow, insect pest, disease and drought damage.
These biotic and abiotic factors are outside the control of forest owners. It is accepted that forests are now more vulnerable to climate change, as witnessed across Europe in recent years.
Now, forest owners are expected to carry out their own fire insurance
Ireland has largely escaped the worst excesses of forest damage, but the signs are there, as ash dieback and recent windblow caused by Storm Darwin illustrated.
It may be time to consider the adoption of a State-funded insurance forest scheme to cover damage that is outside the control of forest owners, as suggested by COFORD.
Certainty for long-term
“Farmers need certainty in relation to long-term decisions,” maintained the FLAIG report referring to windblow.
“A reforestation scheme should give some confidence to the landowners that they are being supported long-term in their land use change.
Greater certainty over the existence of a reconstitution scheme, should unforeseen events occur, would provide greater confidence in the future of an enterprise [such as forestry] with such long timeframes.”
This scheme would target appropriate threats, such as storm cover, which is currently not being covered by forest insurers. Forest owners would still be required to have their own fire insurance and public liability cover.
The report said 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.
In order for insurance markets to exist efficiently, the report outlined a number of necessary elements before suggesting that:
The potential of a Government-funded insurance scheme to provide confidence and underpin the sector be investigated; or The impact of Government aid to those who have insurance (mandatory or voluntary) should be assessed, eg those who have fire insurance cover but not storm, due to the fact the insurers won’t cover [storm damage].A State insurance scheme would need to cover not only windblow but damage caused by other agents outside the control of forest owners, especially as there is now evidence of increased climate change impacts on forest health.
While praising aspects of the new Forestry Programme(2023-2027) recently, IFA president Tim Cullinan outlined two major barriers in achieving an 8,000ha afforestation programme.
He emphasised the risk factor facing farmers with forests and those contemplating forestry as a land use option.
While he welcomed “the return to the 20-year premium payment for farmers”, he pointed to ash dieback and the replanting obligation as major obstacles in getting farmers to re-engage with forestry.
“The reality is that many farmers no longer view forestry as a safe investment, as the risks associated with committing their land in perpetuity have become too great,” he said.
“The replanting obligation is the single greatest barrier to planting and must be reviewed if planting targets are to be met.”
Farmer confidence
Cullinan said ash dieback “has been hugely damaging to farmer confidence and has made many farmers wary of entering forestry under the current terms and conditions”.
He told Minister Hackett at the recent farm forestry conference that the IFA would engage with the Independent Review of Ash Dieback Scheme, but stressed the importance of achieving a favourable result for ash growers:
“Let me assure the Government that the outcome of the review and the recognition of the financial loss of farmers affected by ash dieback will be seen as a benchmark of their commitment to farmer planting and key to restoring farmer confidence in forestry,” he said.
Declining interest in forestry
There is little doubt that ash dieback and the replanting obligation contribute to farmers’ declining interest in forestry, according to Jason Fleming, IFA forestry committee chair.
“Ash dieback and the future potential threat of other damage, including the bark beetle, have increased the risk to forests,” he said. “The findings of the committee on ash dieback will be crucial in restoring confidence in forestry.”
He also believes that a relaxation of the replanting obligation would remove farmers’ objection to planting.
Both these issues – forest protection and the replanting obligation – have been addressed in the COFORD “Forest Land Availability Implementation Group (FLAIG) Report”.
COFORD’s conflicting views on the replanting obligation
COFORD’s 2018 FLAIG report adopted a flexible approach to the replanting obligation. “The requirement to replant has been identified in multiple surveys and studies as a barrier to afforestation,” it stated.
Financial support
It proposed the introduction of financial support for reforestation, “where additional measures are taken, over and above the replanting obligation”, such as the enhancement of the environment.
Some of these measures have been introduced in the new programme, which awaits State Aid approval.
The COFORD report acknowledged that while relaxing the replanting obligation would be challenging to implement, it “would reassure people and may positively impact on forested land values”, which decline after planting under the existing legislation.
“In reality, most afforested land provides only marginal returns in agriculture, and the high costs associated with returning to agricultural use makes this land use reversion unlikely,” the authors stated.
In reality, most afforested land provides only marginal returns in agriculture
“If the replanting commitment was relaxed, then the area of deforestation would have to be monitored and controlled to manage and understand its impact,” the report added.
The FLAIG report’s findings have not been debated, even within COFORD, as outlined in its 2022 publication “Forests and Wood Products, and Their Importance in Climate Change Mitigation”.
It stated: “Any loosening of the replanting obligation following clearfelling carries a risk of creating further deforestation and of potentially reducing the sink amounts to well below those indicated over the period 2021-2030.”
Contradictory view
This contradictory view of its own FLAIG report is disappointing and disingenuous. The land availability group’s findings were considered and were careful to ensure a relaxation of the replanting obligation would not cause deforestation.
For example, if Ireland is to achieve an average continuous 16,000ha annual afforestation programme by mid-century, as proposed by COFORD, how could an annual relaxation amounting to, say, 5% or 800ha cause deforestation?
A carefully monitored, flexible approach such as this would ensure a net annual forest increase of 15,200ha. This would surely be a better proposition than the 2,000ha currently achieved – with less than 400ha carried out by farmers?
It is likely that few would opt out of forestry, but a flexible approach could be a major boost to farmers’ confidence in having the option to change land use after final harvest in some circumstances, or after catastrophic damage.
COFORD on the need for a State forestry insurance scheme
Since 2009, reconstitution grant schemes were discontinued for fire-damaged forests.
Now, forest owners are expected to carry out their own fire insurance. However, there is no insurance available to cover windblow, insect pest, disease and drought damage.
These biotic and abiotic factors are outside the control of forest owners. It is accepted that forests are now more vulnerable to climate change, as witnessed across Europe in recent years.
Now, forest owners are expected to carry out their own fire insurance
Ireland has largely escaped the worst excesses of forest damage, but the signs are there, as ash dieback and recent windblow caused by Storm Darwin illustrated.
It may be time to consider the adoption of a State-funded insurance forest scheme to cover damage that is outside the control of forest owners, as suggested by COFORD.
Certainty for long-term
“Farmers need certainty in relation to long-term decisions,” maintained the FLAIG report referring to windblow.
“A reforestation scheme should give some confidence to the landowners that they are being supported long-term in their land use change.
Greater certainty over the existence of a reconstitution scheme, should unforeseen events occur, would provide greater confidence in the future of an enterprise [such as forestry] with such long timeframes.”
This scheme would target appropriate threats, such as storm cover, which is currently not being covered by forest insurers. Forest owners would still be required to have their own fire insurance and public liability cover.
The report said 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.
In order for insurance markets to exist efficiently, the report outlined a number of necessary elements before suggesting that:
The potential of a Government-funded insurance scheme to provide confidence and underpin the sector be investigated; or The impact of Government aid to those who have insurance (mandatory or voluntary) should be assessed, eg those who have fire insurance cover but not storm, due to the fact the insurers won’t cover [storm damage].A State insurance scheme would need to cover not only windblow but damage caused by other agents outside the control of forest owners, especially as there is now evidence of increased climate change impacts on forest health.
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: