DEAR EDITOR,
Donal Magner, in the edition dated 21 March, outlined the serious impact that a changing State forest policy has on the future of our commercial timber sector.
Many commercial elements in the wider agricultural sector are even more impacted by often conflicting agendas.
We import over €400m vegetables; partly due to lack of capacity to preserve, store and supply during winter and spring, tillage growers cannot compete with the dairy sector for renting land, but, above all else, we the State take the easy option of embracing cheaper imports.
Exhorting consumers to ignore cheap imports will achieve nothing, government orders and directives creatively formulated and delivered is the only way.
Forest policy should have two clear agendas:
1. The need to grow tree species that produce timber for housing.2. The need to support biodiversity, counter carbon emissions by planting species that will remain undisturbed have no commercial value. The current forest policy is failing to meet either objective which is why farmers are refusing to engage.
I suggest it is possible to deliver some biodiversity to timber-producing species, ie Sitka spruce, by planting in 50/50 intimate mixtures with other species like birch.
However, this would be on the basis of no thinning, 100% of the area evolving into a sawlog crop, with the non-commercial, biodiverse species sacrificed along the way.
This has merit because spruce as a monoculture receives most criticism during its first 20 years.
Another key factor here would be scale. I planted 4ha for my neighbour 35 years ago, produced excellent timber but the price was very low because it lacked the scale needed for modern, very expensive harvesting machinery.
There will be no second rotation – the area is now replanted for biodiversity.
Regarding biodiversity, the second objective, farm biodiversity and the general working environment on farms could be dramatically improved provided trees were planted so:
a) they did not interfere with the main farm enterprise.b) they were officially not expected to have any short or long-term commercial value.c) they provide wildlife corridors,and food/shelter for apex predators.d) the State provides an annual payment to offset loss of earnings.To put flesh on above, I suggest the minister appoints a diverse group that would contain expertise in the various parts, ideally retired or partially retired people who have a lifetime of expertise in their own area, are no longer driven by sectoral agendas, can accommodate other viewpoints, and develop a plan that will receive support from the citizens, who have to pay for everything.
DEAR EDITOR,
Donal Magner, in the edition dated 21 March, outlined the serious impact that a changing State forest policy has on the future of our commercial timber sector.
Many commercial elements in the wider agricultural sector are even more impacted by often conflicting agendas.
We import over €400m vegetables; partly due to lack of capacity to preserve, store and supply during winter and spring, tillage growers cannot compete with the dairy sector for renting land, but, above all else, we the State take the easy option of embracing cheaper imports.
Exhorting consumers to ignore cheap imports will achieve nothing, government orders and directives creatively formulated and delivered is the only way.
Forest policy should have two clear agendas:
1. The need to grow tree species that produce timber for housing.2. The need to support biodiversity, counter carbon emissions by planting species that will remain undisturbed have no commercial value. The current forest policy is failing to meet either objective which is why farmers are refusing to engage.
I suggest it is possible to deliver some biodiversity to timber-producing species, ie Sitka spruce, by planting in 50/50 intimate mixtures with other species like birch.
However, this would be on the basis of no thinning, 100% of the area evolving into a sawlog crop, with the non-commercial, biodiverse species sacrificed along the way.
This has merit because spruce as a monoculture receives most criticism during its first 20 years.
Another key factor here would be scale. I planted 4ha for my neighbour 35 years ago, produced excellent timber but the price was very low because it lacked the scale needed for modern, very expensive harvesting machinery.
There will be no second rotation – the area is now replanted for biodiversity.
Regarding biodiversity, the second objective, farm biodiversity and the general working environment on farms could be dramatically improved provided trees were planted so:
a) they did not interfere with the main farm enterprise.b) they were officially not expected to have any short or long-term commercial value.c) they provide wildlife corridors,and food/shelter for apex predators.d) the State provides an annual payment to offset loss of earnings.To put flesh on above, I suggest the minister appoints a diverse group that would contain expertise in the various parts, ideally retired or partially retired people who have a lifetime of expertise in their own area, are no longer driven by sectoral agendas, can accommodate other viewpoints, and develop a plan that will receive support from the citizens, who have to pay for everything.
SHARING OPTIONS