DEAR SIR: I am writing about Donal Magner’s article in the Irish Farmers Journal of 11 August on the Forestry Knowledge Transfer Group (KTG) scheme and Michael Ryan’s questioning of the integrity of the forestry KTG scheme.
Indeed the integrity of the Forestry KTG scheme is in question. Questions must be asked when a group intends to retain for administration 78% of the funding allocated to run a KTG and pay the person with the technical knowledge (the forester) 22% of the KTG funding (as per producer group advert seeking a forester). This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the KTG initiative and shows little commitment to obtaining the best technical knowledge for their forest owner members or indeed efficient administration of the scheme.
Creating administration layers in a scheme when none are needed while relegating the importance of the role of the technical knowledge provider (core objective) in a KTG scheme to a box-ticking exercise questions the use of KTG funding for KTG purposes.
Perhaps the producer groups wish to run discussion groups rather than KT groups.
Ryan bemoans the lack of a comprehensive training, skills and information programme accompanying the afforestation that has taken place since the 1990s. Teagasc has received substantial funding annually for the last 30 years for the purpose of promotion, education and training directed towards private forest owners. Does Ryan consider that this money was used unwisely, or was used ineffectively?
Ryan casts doubt over the delivery of the knowledge in an unbiased and independent manner. What of the ability of the directors of producer groups to conduct their affairs in an unbiased and unprejudiced fashion towards foresters?
The governance of producer groups in this era of heightened data sensitivity with the new GPDR regulations lacks clarity. The Forest Service and Teagasc transferring forest owners’ sensitive data to these unvetted groups who seek to vet others seems unwise and foolhardy and we object strongly to it. Our members have made their living providing forestry advice and services to forest owners over many years and hope to continue doing so into the future to the satisfaction and benefit of everyone.
Read more
The importance of knowledge transfer in forestry
Importance of a management plan emphasised by the Forest Service
DEAR SIR: I am writing about Donal Magner’s article in the Irish Farmers Journal of 11 August on the Forestry Knowledge Transfer Group (KTG) scheme and Michael Ryan’s questioning of the integrity of the forestry KTG scheme.
Indeed the integrity of the Forestry KTG scheme is in question. Questions must be asked when a group intends to retain for administration 78% of the funding allocated to run a KTG and pay the person with the technical knowledge (the forester) 22% of the KTG funding (as per producer group advert seeking a forester). This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the KTG initiative and shows little commitment to obtaining the best technical knowledge for their forest owner members or indeed efficient administration of the scheme.
Creating administration layers in a scheme when none are needed while relegating the importance of the role of the technical knowledge provider (core objective) in a KTG scheme to a box-ticking exercise questions the use of KTG funding for KTG purposes.
Perhaps the producer groups wish to run discussion groups rather than KT groups.
Ryan bemoans the lack of a comprehensive training, skills and information programme accompanying the afforestation that has taken place since the 1990s. Teagasc has received substantial funding annually for the last 30 years for the purpose of promotion, education and training directed towards private forest owners. Does Ryan consider that this money was used unwisely, or was used ineffectively?
Ryan casts doubt over the delivery of the knowledge in an unbiased and independent manner. What of the ability of the directors of producer groups to conduct their affairs in an unbiased and unprejudiced fashion towards foresters?
The governance of producer groups in this era of heightened data sensitivity with the new GPDR regulations lacks clarity. The Forest Service and Teagasc transferring forest owners’ sensitive data to these unvetted groups who seek to vet others seems unwise and foolhardy and we object strongly to it. Our members have made their living providing forestry advice and services to forest owners over many years and hope to continue doing so into the future to the satisfaction and benefit of everyone.
Read more
The importance of knowledge transfer in forestry
Importance of a management plan emphasised by the Forest Service
SHARING OPTIONS