AS I SEE IT
BY MARIANNE HERON
One of the striking sights in a TV programme about the incredible race to restore Notre Dame cathedral was the felling of magnificent oak trees. Nearly 2,000 have been used to rebuild the beams and the spire which fell when the iconic building went ablaze in Paris five years ago.
France is rich in forests, which cover around 30% of the land there so there were plenty of oaks to choose from but only 11% of the Irish landscape – once 80% clothed with native woods – is forested today.
We need more trees for a variety of reasons but most urgently we need them as a defence against global warming. Trees sequester carbon as they grow and they are the single largest climate mitigation available to us in the struggle to halve carbon emissions by 2030 and bring them to zero by 2050 under the National Climate Action plan.
But just at the very time when we need more trees the forestry plan is stalling. It is estimated that between 18,000 to 33,000 HA need to be planted every year to meet targets, yet last year only 2,000 HA were planted. The incentives in the form of grants have been increased to 66%, and the profits from forestry are higher than agriculture on non-dairy farms so what is causing the logjam?
“The biggest barrier is cultural,” says Ray O’Foghlu, Farm Programme Co-ordinator of Home Tree, dedicated to the conservation and establishment of native woodlands, who acts in advisory capacity to farmers. With a reduction in forest planting on State land, forestation is up to farmers and private individuals. “Covering good land with woodland is anathema to farmers,” says Ray, especially given that shorter cycles for tillage and cattle farming are the norm compared with the decades required for forestry.
Also, farmers became disincentivised when grants were cut back after the financial crash. “They have been messed around and they have lost interest,” says Ray.
Previously afforestation went well, reaching a peak in 1995, while figures for last year are down to only 8pc of that. The cost of application for a forestry licence, which can involve reports from ecologists, hydrologists etc running to several thousand euro, is a further disincentive and there is no going back once trees are planted, as there can’t be a return to former land use.
Bureaucratic delays are also part of the problem. The Social Economic and Environmental Forestry Association (SEEFA) want to see prompt action on implementing the already belated 2023-27 forestry programme with a functioning licensing system to avoid delays, including timelines of 120 days. They also want to see support for participants in previous programmes, particularly landowners with Ash Dieback plus the establishment of a Forestry Development Agency..
There is also the question of what should be planted and where; Sitka spruce is a non-native cash crop, accounting for 59% of our forests, destined to be felled while broadleaf native trees which are far more environmentally and ecologically friendly are more about planting for the future.
Trees should not be planted on peatlands as this increases carbon emissions and damages the environment and there are now regulations against this. They could be planted on uplands but current regulations won’t allow trees to be planted on land over 120 metres, near the sea or with more than 25% bare rock where they might be stunted but they will grow.
Meantime, Coillte, the semi-State forestry company, are setting an example with their forestry plan announced last year aimed at delivering multiple benefits from its forests and bring more focus to climate action, with new targets on biodiversity and recreation, while continuing to deliver the forest and wood products to industry.
There is a 1.3 bn Euro budget allocated for forestry but if things continue as they are that money won’t be spent because no one is buying into forestry. Policy may be changing but it needs to bring a change of heart about what trees can mean to our future. We can’t afford to see it as a cash crop: it needs to be a form of insurance for all our futures where farmers and stakeholders become carbon bankers offsetting carbon emissions and where we invest in convincing them and making the endeavour worth their while.
