Browne to meet forestry firms

The main forestry companies have welcomed the decision by the Minister of State John Browne to meet with them today (Thursday) to discuss their proposal to rescue the current planting season.

This is the first meeting between the Minister and the companies since the slashing of funding for the forestry sector in the Estimates.

The forestry companies have asked that every eligible applicant who wants to plant this spring should be allowed to do so, and they have proposed a system of deferred payment to facilitate this.

The companies have obtained the support of the main nurseries and the IFA on this position.

They include Coillte Farm Forestry Services, Portlaoise, Forestry Services, Dundrum, South Western Forestry Services, Bandon, Greenbelt, Virginia, Mid Western Forestry Services, Abbeyfeale and Woodland Contractors, Galway.

Forestry and value for money: convincing the Government

The Government's stated intention to rigidly control public expenditure in the period 2003-2005 has serious implications for the forestry sector

Although the forestry programme is co-financed on a 50:50 basis from exchequer and EU funding and has a proven record for wealth creation, particularly in rural Ireland, the government has inexplicably targeted the sector for one of the biggest cutbacks in public funding.

A recent COFORD study on the economic implications of the cutbacks states that these will result in a loss in economic activity estimated at €58 million, with a net gain to the exchequer of less than €14 million. When the reduced afforestation is related to loss in carbon sequestration potential, there are likely to be long-term losses to the exchequer.

Case for funding

While the case for funding a viable forestry programme has been well made in the past, it hasn't always been communicated effectively to key policy and decision makers. During the lead up to the launch of the Government's Strategic Plan for the Development of the Forestry Sector in Ireland in 1996, the case for forestry was accepted by Government and incorporated in the plan. Many proponents of forestry felt they would not have to make the case again during the lifetime of the Plan. However, the recent funding cutback of E29 million illustrated starkly that the case should be made again.

It is now almost seven years since the strategy was launched. While people involved in forestry generally take the long view, they would do well to remember that seven years might be a short time in forestry, but it is very long time in politics.

Value for money

Value for money, quite rightly, is a key criterion in the allocation of public funds. There is much in the COFORD reports that clearly illustrates that forestry is providing value for money and both reports should form the basis for negotiations with Government on rethinking its policy on cutbacks. However the stumbling block in making the case for forestry these days is trying to locate a Government Minister who is prepared to accept responsibility for the forestry strategy. Forestry does not have a voice at cabinet and has been subsumed in a department (Communications, Marine and Natural Resources) that has shown little enthusiasm for the subject.

Other departments that are indirectly responsible for elements of forestry have shown little inclination to support relevant aspects of the programme. For example, the most important study since the publication of the forestry strategy was commissioned by the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment, in 2000. The Timber Industry Development Group (TIDG) was established by the Tanaiste to make recommendations for the optimum development of the industry sectors which process and market Irish wood. The group's report has been with the Tanaiste for 15 months and there is little likelihood that it will be published.

The TIDG report maintained that the proliferation of government departments and agencies that interact with the forest industry means that there is a lack of a coherent, consistent approach and implementation by the state sector in terms of its policies programmes and supports. There is a growing belief that the civil service structure is ill equipped to meet the needs of the forestry sector.

It lacks the flexibility and commercial expertise to provide the level of service now required. The forestry sector, in making a case for increased support for the Strategic Plan, may well be advised to seek a review of the different functions of the Forest Service and explore how these could best be performed by an independent forestry board or agency.

This new entity would need a performance-related ethos with policy driven by a board that reflects the industry and the market place.

Next season

With three months left in the planting programme, the debate will soon focus on next season's forestry programme and what's left of the Rural Development Plan up to 2006.

In the meantime, the Government would do well to ponder the conclusions of the recent COFORD analysis of the cutbacks: "the economic structure of the industry implies that the proposed reductions will have a devastating impact on the industry. These impacts will be felt in some of the most disadvantaged areas of the Irish economy.

The cutbacks may have an even more devastating impact if the new levels of expenditure are used as the base-year levels when future budgetary decisions are being made.'' It is important that the COFORD studies are presented to Government. While there is no guarantee that they will be acted on, there is sufficient information and analysis to create a debate, both inside and outside government, on the future of the forestry programme.