Activating unused felling licences

When Minister Doyle met members of the Farm and Forestry Contractors in Ireland (FCI) recently, he heard at first hand the problems facing contractors. While the Minister outlined measures to increase the issuing of felling licences in last week’s Irish Farmers Journal, there is an acceptance now that this is going to take time.

Unused licences

Both parties discussed the subject of unused licences, which if activated could help increase work for contractors and log supply to processing mills. These are licences issued to private forest owners currently in circulation that “could be harnessed to help alleviate current shortages,” according to Minister Doyle.

Nobody, including Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) officials, knows exactly how many licences lie dormant. The reasons forest owners and their foresters withhold licences after going to the trouble of applying haven’t been fully assessed.

Felling licences go hand in hand with forest roading, so forest owners who have received felling licences are also likely to have received DAFM approval and funding for forest road construction. This is not always the case, as pointed out by a number of forest owners including the Munster farmer featured below (see below).

While the Minister outlined measures to increase the issuing of felling licences in last week’s Irish Farmers Journal, there is an acceptance now that this is going to take time

Price is also likely to be a reason for not thinning or clearfelling. The price of sawlog is down on the average achieved in 2018 for large log size categories. One of the main advantages of forestry over agriculture is that forest owners can delay harvesting if cashflow is not an issue.

While delaying a clearfell has merit, postponing thinning is a false economy even if prices are low. The objective of thinning is to benefit the final crop so a grower who has opted for a four- or five-year thinning cycle should stick to it as the benefits will be reaped at final harvest in addition to receiving an income stream in the meantime.

Clearfell

Delaying a clearfell until the market picks up is a different matter. For example, the owner of a good-quality 27-year-old spruce crop ready for clearfell and carrying 400m3/ha could have realistically expected between €22,000 and €26,000/ha 18 months ago. While official prices are not yet available for the quarter up to December, it is likely that the same owners may receive between €3,000 and €5,000/ha less. So if cashflow is not an issue, the owner can wait but should explore the option of carrying out a further thinning.

A further thinning at age 27 could produce 50m3/ha with a mix of predominantly medium and small sawlog, stake and pulpwood, which are fetching surprisingly good prices at the moment. So thinning again could produce an average volume of 40m3/ha, realising €1,500/ha.

One of the main advantages of forestry over agriculture is that forest owners can delay harvesting if cashflow is not an issue

Regardless of whether you decide to thin or clearfell, the advice is to shop around as prices vary from mill to mill and there are still mills that need timber badly at the moment, as Coillte supply is also down.

The major restriction to delaying clearfell or carrying out further thinning is the risk of windthrow, especially on exposed sites. Wind risk is also influenced by soil type and soil moisture, which dictate rooting depth.

Crops are vulnerable to windthrow at some stage, especially as top height increases. Good wind-stable sites can reach 25m top height before they are vulnerable, but the risk of windthrow increases as crops exceed 18m. Storm Darwin in 2014 even blew down forests with top height between 10m and 15m, especially crops that had been recently thinned and roaded. Top height and the extent of waterlogging were identified as the two major factors.

Timing

In recent years, we received reports of clearfelling being carried out as early as year 24 in high-yielding crops, with yield classes (YCs) between 22 and 26 (m3/ha/annum) and even higher. While early clearfelling may be necessary on high wind risk sites, it is false economy on windfirm sites where the greatest cumulative volumes are achieved between 30 and 40 years. Thinning a crop in the mid-20s can result in a cumulative volume loss as high as 300m3/ha achieved between years 25 and 35. The proportionate income loss can be as high as €10,000/ha by not waiting until the crop is at least 30 years of age.

The major restriction to delaying clearfell or carrying out further thinning is the risk of windthrow, especially on exposed sites

So the advice to growers with felling licences is to delay clearfells if the price is too low but shop around. However, postponing thinning makes no economic or silvicultural sense.

If your forest is on a wind-firm site and at final harvest age, a further thinning is an option. This will provide income in the short term and allows you to clearfell when the price is right. It also provides work for contractors which is vital because if these go out of business they are unlikely to return to an industry which will double production to 7.9million m3 within 15 years. Without a viable contracting sector, much of this timber will stay in the forest.

The following is a not untypical story of a Munster farmer who wishes to carry out a thinning on his forest and has an unused felling licence. John (not his real name) has a felling licence but a year after applying for a forest road grant, he finally received DAFM approval subject to planning permission from the county council.

“As the forest is split in two, we have already spent €2,200 on the planning application and if we proceed, it will cost at least a further €2,000,” he said. He acknowledged that a grant of up €800 is available for each felling contract number but this will only partially cover his costs.

In addition to planning, an environmental report is required as the forest is in a hen harrier area and also has an archaeological site. “This report will cost a minimum of €1,000 and an archaeologist will be required on site which could add a further €2,000 to expenditure,” he explained.

As the forest is split in two, we have already spent €2,200 on the planning application and if we proceed, it will cost at least a further €2,000

The council is also seeking improvement work to the public road. Local authorities differ throughout Ireland in their approach to forest roads. “The introduction of the single consent system is the solution to this variation,” maintained John.

“The single consent system for forest road entrances under the aegis of DAFM needs to be introduced as a matter of urgency [as] the present arrangement whereby forest owners are required to receive planning approval for new forest road entrances from the relevant local authority is acting as a barrier to wood mobilisation,” according to COFORD. In 2018, DAFM stated: “regulations should be in place shortly to ensure that the Department is the single consent authority for forest road works, where the exit is on to a public road”.