The bacon Report

The Bacon report runs to 171 pages and covers a wide range of forestry and related issues. It appears on the Department of Agriculture website www.agriculture.gov.ie. The following is a summary of the main recommendations:

• Annual planting target of 20,000 hectares

• Separate funding for commercial and environmental forestry

• Non-timber value of forests to be recognised

• Forestry payments to be index-linked to changes in the value of payments under other agricultural schemes including REPS

• State reserves option to buy timber from growers at year 10

• "Overhead" in establishment grant to be eliminated

• Premium period for farmer compensatory payments reduced from 20 to 10 years

• Ring-fence carbon sequestration benefits as a result of reduced need to purchase green credits

• Funding research to identify and quantify non-timber returns from forestry

• Greater attention to achieving broadleaved targets

• Creation of a comprehensive inventory of private forests and a national forecasting model

• The adoption by the State of a multi-annual budgeting policy in relation to forestry

• Establishment of a Forestry Development Forum

• Premium increase for planting larger areas

Sector response to Bacon report

The reaction to the Bacon report is mixed as expected from such a wide ranging study. All organisations and individuals in the sector welcomed the recommendation of 20,000 hectare annual planting programme.

John Jackson, IFA Farm Forestry Chairman acknowledged that there are some positive aspects to the report but added that these were "overshadowed by the negative".

Mr. Jackson rejected the report's proposal "to give the state compulsory purchase rights for timber after ten years" and warned that the report if adopted "would generate a state monopoly on Irish timber at the cost of farmer foresters, if implemented in its current form".

Coillte welcomed the publication. "The report is a very timely and an important contribution to the debate on the future direction of the national forestry strategy at both national and EU level" a Coillte spokesperson said.

"Coillte supports the proposal for a national strategic target of afforesting 20,000 hectares annually up to 2035". The company also considered that "the extensive research and analysis underpinning the findings in the report will be a very significant input to discussions on the new draft Rural Development Regulation".

Donal Whelan, Irish Timber Growers said that the State buy back at year 10 is only workable where both parties have an option to trade. He claimed that this measure would improve tradability of woodlands which has been a problem up to now especially in young and semi-mature plantations.

He welcomed the proposal for group cooperation to improve economies of scale. He also supported the recommendation to review existing forestry legislation especially in relation to felling licences and the reforestation obligation after final harvesting or clearfelling.

George McCarthy, Chairman, Irish Forest Industry Chain said that the "real value of the report will be its ability to inform debate with regard to the proposed Rural Development Plan post 2006, which in its present form is a show stopper from an afforestation viewpoint".

According to John Phelan, of Woodland Contractors and the forestry assessment companies, the report has emphasised the need for greater emphasis on forestry as an enterprise instead of just providing a supplement to farm income which he believes is positive.

However he feels that many of the useful recommendations could be "overshadowed by some flawed proposals including two, either of which could demolish the required supply of 20,000 hectares annually".

He said that the compulsory buy-back proposal is flawed on various counts and fails to properly analyse the transfer value of land into forestry and could not raise even a fraction of the €655 million which is its only justification.

"The proposal to get farmers to pay a substantial part of the planting cost is also flawed, wrongly calculated and fails to consider the impact on land supply" he said.

Overall Mr. Phelan feels that the report will be a basis for debate and "given the flaws, needs to be rigorously reality checked before any of its proposals are even considered".