Teagasc submission to the Consultation Paper on the Forestry Programme 2014- 2020
Introduction:
Teagasc welcomes the draft proposals outlined in the Consultation Paper – Forestry Programme 2014 – 2020 and believe that many of the proposed measures have to potential to contribute to the expansion of the forestry sector in Ireland and the potential to leverage the existing resource to the benefit of the forest owners, the community and the state. Although it is understood that the financial aspects are being dealt with separately, it is difficult to comment on the impact of the measures without any indication of the level of funding proposed for each of the measures. It is understood that the proposal is to fund the programme from 100% Exchequer funding in line with EU Guidelines for State Aid and be compatible with the RDR. We believe that the range of measures proposed contribute to the aims and objectives of CAP and the priority areas of the RDR.
4.1 Measure 1: Afforestation and Creation of Woodlands
Teagasc welcomes the on-going and future commitment towards the afforestation and creation of woodlands programme while recognising that it has been very challenging to meet forestry establishment targets. It is estimated (Farrelly & Gallagher, 2013) that the amount of land in active agricultural use is currently 4.1 million hectares. With the ambitions outlined for the expansion of agriculture and the restrictions imposed by sustainability directives (nitrates, water framework) and climate change agreements, it is unlikely that the amount of land being farmed will contract significantly.
In general, land sales in Ireland are not very mobile and it is estimated that in 2011 only 0.3% of the land was put on the market (Irish Farmer’s Journal Report, 2012). However, as outlined by Bogue (2012) in his report commissioned by Macra na Feirme, land is the core asset in productive agriculture and he outlines the need for policies to be put in place to ensure that the targets outlined in Food Harvest 2020 be achieved. These two factors, taken in association with the findings of Farrelly and Gallagher (2013) that outline the challenge in relation to land availability for afforestation and competing land uses, present a unique dilemma in relation to land use and its availability for achieving competing targets.
There is a substantial investment by those landowners considering the afforestation option due to the long-term nature of forestry. The perceived need to retain land for conventional farming and the permanency of the land-use change that is forestry may act as a disincentive in some cases to afforestation (McDonagh et al., 2010). In addition, the attachment to agricultural production means that in many cases, even with greater financial returns, the forestry option will not be considered (Breen et al., 2005). In this context, competition between the incomes generated by the afforestation option and by existing land uses needs to be considered.
Removing the differential between the farmer and non-farmer rate of premium may have an adverse effect: outside forestry interests may compete with local landowners in certain parts of the country thereby pushing up land prices resulting in neighbours being out-bid for local properties. This effect caused significant disquiet in the early nineties when private afforestation took off. The current tax-favourable status of forest incomes relates to its association with the farming community and the concept that the premium is a compensation for income foregone in farming. Should this situation change and forestry be perceived as being investor-driven, this taxation approach may be reconsidered.
Ryan et al. (2013) attested that some farmers have viewed the social and economic consequences of forestry negatively in the past. There has been significant progress in recent years however in changing this perspective, with positive feedback from farmers who had planted and timber production and local employment coming on stream. There is a risk that this softening of attitudes may be reversed should this situation change and forestry again become perceived as an external influence competing with local interests.
4.1.2.1 & 4.1.2.2 Agroforestry (GPC 9) & Forestry for fibre (GPC 10)
Whilst the proposals to introduce two new pilot GPCs for agro-forestry and forestry for fibre are very welcome as measures to prevent/mitigate runoff, sequester carbon, fibre supply, provide habitats etc., the proposed permanent nature under the provisions of forestry legislation is likely to cause concern and discourage uptake.
The permanent nature of forestry was identified as a primary barrier to planting in Teagasc surveys of farmers conducted in Cork in 2009 and in Roscommon in 2010. Of the 102 participants in the Cork survey, 32% of respondents felt that the most influential variable in making the decision to plant was that “forestry is better use of marginal land”. The second most important influence in making the decision to plant was the level of grant/premium payment (23% of respondents). In Roscommon, the 40% of farmers who had not considered forestry cited a variety of reasons, the most common of which were “land too good for forestry”, “not interested”, “not enough land” and “prefer farming” (Ryan, Kinsella & Upton, 2013).
A survey of farmers conducted by Teagasc in 2012 (unpublished), questions were asked about their reasons for not planting forestry. Factors related to land quality and agriculture were generally most important while profitability of forestry and the levels of premium payments were also recognised as important factors. In the context of expanding traditional farming enterprises, such as dairying under the Food Harvest 2020 programme, agroforestry would be competing with more established land uses for similar good quality land.
Alternative agroforestry systems should also be considered and investigated. The proposed 400 – 1000 stems ha-1 under GPC 9 precludes alley systems where, for example, tree rows can be spaced 20 m apart or greater and trees 1.25 m within the rows. More research will be required so that advisory agencies have good information to advise both the industry and potential growers. Training will be required of advisors, contractors, consultants etc., with particular emphasis on the provision of adequate stock proofing of trees. It is recommended that further agroforestry pilot sites be established.
4.2 Measure 2: Investments in Infrastructure: Forest Road Scheme
Teagasc welcomes the continuing support for the establishment of forest roads. In order to reach existing timber supply forecasts, investment in forest roads together with optimisation of the potential timber supply chain is essential. Current forecasts for private forest sector are based on the assumption of continued support for forest roads (Phillips, 2011). The importance of the access to public roads and of internal forest roads was also highlighted by a more recent report into supply of energy wood (Farrelly, Fitzgerald & Phillips, 2013).
4.3 Measure 3: Prevention and restoration of Damage to Forest:
- Reconstitution Scheme
Forestry is viewed as a low-risk investment and is seen to provide a secure income and an on-farm pension scheme. However, unforeseen threats can affect this investment and forestry legislation places the onus on the landowner to reinstate woodlands that have been destroyed. For example, recent storm damage may adversely affect forest owners with immature crops due to low timber salvage values. The possible support towards the restoration of forests damaged by natural and catastrophic events and/or climate change related events would help retain confidence in what is a very long-term investment.
4.5 Measure 5: Investments improving the Resilience and Environmental value of Forestry: - Woodland Improvement (Thinning and Tending- Broadleaves)
The continued support for broadleaf silvicultural interventions through the Woodland Improvement Scheme is welcomed. Such interventions are essential if quality potential crop trees and attendant biodiversity benefits are to be delivered. Without the scheme supports, the potential of many broadleaf plantations will not be reached due to the high financial burden to forest owners and may result in the decision not to thin or actively manage their crop.
4.4 Measure 4: Investments improving the Resilience and Environmental value of Forestry: - NeighbourWood Scheme
4.6 Measure 6: Investments improving the Resilience and Environmental value of Forestry: - Native Woodland Scheme
Teagasc supports a flexible approach to afforestation. In areas where environmental considerations exist, a flexible approach can facilitate a broad range of objectives including biodiversity, tourism, recreation and timber production. It is necessary to have a support system to provide advice and to equip forest owners to have the necessary information and skills and infrastructural support to optimise the potential woodland resource for both the land owner and the wider community.
4.7 Measure 7: Knowledge Transfer and Information Actions
Teagasc recognises that forestry is a new enterprise for most private forest owners, therefore knowledge of forestry and forest management is sometimes low. The expansion and use of the forest resource and overcoming inertia are challenges resulting from a lack of knowledge and a limited owner-based forest culture.
In a survey of forest owners, (Maguire, Ní Dhubháin & Farrelly, 2010) significant factors in the decision to harvest were-
· if owners have timber production as an objective; they are 2.7 times more likely to thin
· if there is a written management plan for the forest
· if owners have attended extension activities they are 2.5 times more likely to thin
Knowledge transfer, through extension services and discussion groups, coupled with infrastructural support, are prerequisites for the optimisation of the private timber resource by means of providing knowledge and skills necessary to improve the productivity and profitability of forest enterprises, encouraging the adoption of best practice and providing assistance to forest owners to meet set standards re the environment and addressing plant health and cross compliance issues.
Teagasc recognises the need to encourage landowners to acquire knowledge on the forest enterprise before investing in forestry, for example by attending a training course prior to planting. It is appreciated that this should not act as a deterrent to entry into the scheme but many of the issues that are arising today, including active forest management and failure to thin are directly related to the disconnect between the forest owner and the forest. It is suggested that a short induction/introductory course prior to establishment could avert many of the issues through awareness and therefore should be supported and encouraged.
There is a concern in the forest industry about the absence of training for harvesting machine operators. The lack of trained and certified operators is already having negative effects on the industry, as highlighted in FTEI’s Harvesting Training Needs Analysis report (FTEI, 2011). Teagasc believes that provision should be made under section 4.7.1.3 Targeted Training, to support such training. FETAC modules for the training for Harvesting machine operatives are already developed and on the curriculum of the forestry courses in Teagasc college Ballyhaise. However, the current unavailability of the critical “hard” in-forest machine skills training to complement the college based “soft” skills is limiting the delivery of these modules. Any targeted funding could be on the basis of a partnership approach between the relevant industry stakeholders.
4.8 Measure 8: Setting up of Producer Groups
Teagasc would welcome the broadening of the title of this Measure 8 from setting up of Producer Groups to setting up Forest Owner Groups. Teagasc believes that Forest Owner Groups are a valuable mechanism for neighbouring forest owners to develop their knowledge and share experiences.
Teagasc, in co-operation will all sectors of the forestry industry, is seeking to mobilise the private forest thinning resource through dissemination of research, training and the building of familiarity with and confidence in the harvesting and marketing of the timber resource. This development is still in its infancy and will need continued support until they become more established and self-actualised.
Forest Owner Groups are seen as an important vehicle for the dissemination of information and transfer and sharing of knowledge to private forest owners. There are currently 26 Forest Owner Groups operating with the support of Teagasc in the country, consisting of more than 1,900 forest owners. Overall, there are an estimated 9,000- 10,000 forest owners of grant- aided plantations between the ages of 12- 22 years. Teagasc would welcome support for both new and existing Forest Owner Groups.
4.9 Measure 9: Investments in Forest Technology
Teagasc is very much in favour of this measure to support the introduction of new technologies for use in private forests which have the potential to increase efficiency, reduce costs or contribute to reducing the environmental impact of forestry operations. In particular, Teagasc welcomes the focus on smaller scale technologies which may be more appropriate to the forest profile owned by private landowners. National Farm Survey analysis suggests an average ownership of over 11 ha per forest owner (Hennessy et al., 2011), although lesser average forest areas of 8 ha and 9 ha have been found in farm forestry studies carried out in Clare and Cork in 2006 and 2009 respectively (Purser et al, 2006 and 2009). New technologies have the potential to address the scale issues faced by many forest owners.
4.10 Measure 10: Forest Environment and Climate Services:
- Forest Genetic Reproductive Material
There is a need to develop a suite of silvicultural options and guidance for broadleaf plantation management in order to optimise the broadleaf resource. The potential of alternative/ improved species/ mixed species forests should be investigated to lessen the risk of current and future biotic threats.
The threat potential to the national timber resource has come sharply into focus with the recent discovery of two fungal- based diseases. Such diseases have both direct and indirect effects on timber supply and demand which include cost of eradication/ containment, the opportunity cost associated with suspending or restricting the planting of tree species and the price effect on a diminishing supply of a particular species. Supports aimed at improving the quality of new planting stock, the conservation of existing forest genetic resources and the production of designated broadleaf species are to be welcomed.
There is a considerable cost involved in establishing seed orchards and the land is tied up for 30-60 years. Support may be required for the establishment of new seed producing orchards for the major species of broadleaves and selected conifers (including Scots pine).