Woodland owners are concerned that an independent review of supports for owners impacted by ash dieback, which was published earlier this month, will be “found gathering dust on a DAFM (Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine) shelf many years from now”.
However, the Limerick and Tipperary Woodland Owners (LTWO) believes that the general public would not accept this.
The LTWO will attend a meeting of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine this evening (Wednesday, October 25), where it will give its response to the independent review that was published on October 3.
In its submission to the committee, the LTWO welcomed the publication of the review, and said its representatives were “immediately impressed” with the engagement from the panel of experts that undertook the review.
“While we suspected that commissioning this review was just an exercise to delay taking action, we freely commend [Minister of State for land use and biodiversity Pippa Hackett] for finally commissioning an independent review,” the group said.
However, the LTWO noted that the joint Oireachtas agriculture committee published its own review of the forestry sector in March 2021, which highlighted the ash dieback issue (among others), but which saw no active follow up on a policy level.
“It is regrettable that the situation was deemed urgent back then and yet none of the action needed was undertaken by the minister and her officials,” the LTWO said.
“Therefore, we are justifiably concerned that the recommendations in (this month’s) review, even though it was commissioned by the minister, could suffer the same fate and be found gathering dust on a DAFM shelf many years from now. But, somehow, [we] do not think the general public will accept that.”
The LTWO said that the review will only be of benefit if its recommendations are implemented in full.
However, the group expressed disappointment that, in the five weeks since the report was received by Minister Hackett, groups representing ash dieback-effected forestry owners have not, according to the LTWO, been approached with a view to setting up the taskforce recommended in the review.
“In the sparce official utterances on the subject since the review was published, there is a lack of any sense of urgency in implementation of the report’s recommendations or recognition that there is an emergency,” the LTWO claimed.
“The initial (ministerial) response to this report was to call for ash plantation owners to sign up to the Reconstitution and Underplanting Scheme (RUS). In light of this scheme having been completely trashed by the reviewers as unfit for purpose…this call is repugnant to our members.”
The LTWO’s submission to the joint committee also criticised progress on Project Woodland (the department’s plan to address forestry sector issues, which was launched in early 2021), specifically ‘workstream 3’ of the project, which centres on organisational development of the department’s Forest Service.
“The review points to a significant cultural problem in the Forest Service. There are many really talented and dedicated personnel in the Forest Service ranks. These people have enormous potential to turn around the demise in forestry today. The cultural malaise would appear to be more in the relatively recent direction of the service,” the group said.
The LTWO also claimed that Forest Service personal advising Minister Hackett “appear reluctant to accept the reality that the RUS is dead in the water”.
“Technical flaws and leadership failure by the state in the introduction of the RUS led to minimal uptake and further negativity of farmers towards forestry and the DAFM Forest Service. This review points to a better way to solve this problem and we wish to assist and be part of the solution.”
According to the LTWO, the “most salient finding” in this month’ review was that there is a “natural justice” case for state aid for losses in forestry due to ash dieback, but that this clashes with EU policies.
However, the group noted that the review recommends “innovative ways” to compensate owners for these losses.
“The future of Irish forestry rests upon the proper implementation of this report’s recommendations in full as the immediate priority. We need a straight-forward disaster type response,” the LTWO said.
“We are not alone in holding the opinion that the Forestry Programme will not succeed until ash dieback is sorted once and for all… In today’s land market there are many other more lucrative ways of land utilisation that do not entail permanency of land use and unreasonable responsibility for dealing with the very real risk of diseased afforestation.
“Farmers are not fools and the Forest Service directors should take note of this,” the group’s submission added.