Issues of Major Concern

Bark Beetle

Now in Scotland. Yet, we continue to import roundwood from there.
This needs to be immediately addressed. The DAFM is largely ignoring the issue
which is the single biggest threat to Irish forestry.

Carbon Credits

Carbon dioxide (CO2) removed from the Earth’s atmosphere and stored in our forests is the property of the forest owner. However, little effort is being made to secure these benefits for afforested land. Our Irish government has been dragging its heels in setting up a national certification body to comply with current EU proposals, where the Commission will approve detailed certification rules for the measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification of carbon removals from both industrial and nature-based activities.

The EU carbon removal certification framework will ensure transparency, environmental integrity, and prevent negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, especially concerning resource or energy-intensive industrial solutions. The objective is to provide assurance about the quality of the carbon removals and make the certification process reliable and trustworthy to combat greenwashing. We urge our political leaders to make better progress in establishing the Forest Carbon Code (FCC), thereby allowing the value of the carbon being sequestered in our trees to be made available to the forest owners, thereby encouraging more landowners into forestry.

Ash Dieback

Ash Dieback disease, known as Chalara, was allowed to be imported by negligent Department of Agriculture commercial companies from European countries, despite widespread knowledge of the disease’s prevalence in those countries. The Department was negligent in their phytosanitary measures and efforts at the time, and if imports had been banned earlier, Irish growers might not now be suffering from the devastating effects of this disease.

The 2023 independent review report criticised the Department’s efforts and made several recommendations and conclusions:

  • Ash Die-Back needs to be treated as a national emergency, requiring a State-led, national, and rapid coordinated response. A Task Force, led by DAFM, should be established involving a dedicated DAFM team, landowners, and forest industry stakeholders to oversee and coordinate the safe and comprehensive clearance and re-establishment of diseased plantations.
  • The RUS scheme is “silviculturally flawed”.
  • The opinions of growers were ignored by the Department.
  • Convincing landowners to commit to forestry in the future will depend on the fair treatment of those affected by ash dieback.
  • Given the extent of research underway into resistance, it seems to be in the shared interest of the State and growers that dying ash plantations are cleared as soon as possible.
  • Schemes in operation since around 2017 were increasingly out of step with the needs of policy and the needs of individual farmers. The flawed design of these schemes was exacerbated by the way in which they were implemented by DAFM, the concurrent crises in forestry licensing, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our conclusion regarding landowners’ engagement with DAFM is that there is much that could be improved beyond changes to the schemes themselves, particularly in customer service, a partnership approach, process efficiency, and communication. LTWO has consistently raised this subject at every opportunity and will continue to do so until a satisfactory resolution for all is found. (See index for the full report of the review.)

Environmental Regulations

Overly onerous rules are stifling planting as well as harvesting.

Changing Rules

The DAFM has the right to change afforestation terms and conditions at any time without consultation. The granting of a Licence to plant trees is not a contract between 2 parties. The DAFM reserves the right to make any changes it sees fit to the terms and conditions which applied at the time of the licence being issued. This is another barrier to afforestation, why would any farmer commit to forestry when any number of negative restrictions could be imposed at will?

Hen Harrier

 All reasonable people want to protect wildlife but the Hen Harrier issue has become farcical with whole swathes of the country literally sterilized to protect a bird which is actually facilitated by well- managed forestry. The requirements to plant unsuitable species on elevated or wet land are also farcical. Such trees effectively become weeds in the name of landscaping and diversity. 

So, are the current proposals scientifically sound? For instance, is a complete cessation of all forestry activity essential for hen harrier survival?                    It is accepted that pre thicket forestry is a good environment for the hen harrier. Could a proper rotational system which would ensure a constantly evolving forest achieve the same ends? 

 If we assume that these proposals are based on proper research and that the 167,115 Ha currently designated as Hen harrier SPAs are necessary for the survival of that particular species no matter what the cost, then all that is needed is a one-sided Cost Analysis. This would be used to determine the loss suffered by the affected landowners who in effect are providing a good which is valued by society but the production cost of which lies entirely with the affected landowner. It is in effect a public good provided by a limited number of landowners for which they cannot directly charge consumers. It is imperative therefore that these landowners are compensated by the state for in effect providing a free socially desirable good.

No such analysis has been conducted. Instead, the Government has had a variety of payments schemes for farmers in designated areas. All schemes were short lived and often difficult to qualify for. In all cases payments were small and uncertain and were only accessed by a limited number of farmers, often as part of schemes such as Glas and Acres for which they would likely have qualified under other headings for similar amounts of money in any event.

For instance the average participant in the recent “ hen harrier project programme” received €3,000 – hardly compensation for income lost never mind the loss in land value.

Premiums

In a major reversal of past practice, the DAFM is not now applying the new premium rates to plantations currently in receipt of premiums under the last scheme. For the past 30 years or more, when a new scheme was introduced, those in receipt of premiums benefitted from the new increased rates. This new “Loyalty Penalty” is similar to the practice in the car insurance industry which was banned.

Inflation

The potential erosion of premium value due to inflation is likely to be (or should be) very important to the typical farmer who invariably is dependent on these payments to provide household income while his or her forest matures. Payments which hold their value are crucial given that the recipient, under current legislation, is permanently tied into forestry. If he or she is unhappy with their income from any other farming endeavour, a change to some other farm enterprise can be made. Not so in forestry.  For this reason alone, it is essential that premiums increase in line with inflation and a decision to plant should not be taken lightly.

Re-Planting

This requirement is a major psychological impediment to afforestation.If it was removed, the vast majority of landowners would still re-plant a commercial crop of softwoods, assuming no change in the area that can be re- planted. Since Ash can no longer be planted, there is no longer any hardwood species capable of giving a decent financial return in the medium term, so in these and other special cases, the re-planting requirement should immediately be removed.

Our independence is vital when so many Forestry Groups have been recruited with the objective of providing only promotional information to new forestry owners. 

The New Forestry Programme does not just affect first time forestry growers. Its conditions and obligations are likely to be applied to existing forestry owners when replanting, as a condition of their felling licence.

Contact Us

If you need any advice, guidance, or assistance regarding your
Forestry ownership please contact us.