Time is running out for those who wish to change the Forestry Bill. It seems that stakeholders representing plantation owners, processors and the forestry companies have had little success in making significant changes to a bill that has been roundly criticised.

“It is unacceptable that farmers/forest owners are expected to commit to forestry for life when there is no guarantee that the full potential of the crop will be realised, said IFA president Eddie Downey. “IFA strongly believes that farmers must be compensated if the full potential of their crop is not achieved.”

“The fact that the Minister can vary the terms and conditions of contracts, suspend or revoke a felling licence or approval, introduces major uncertainty for private forest owners in relation to the management of their investment,” said Michael Fleming, chairman of the IFA forestry group. “If these conditions were to remain, farmers must be compensated for any loss incurred if they cannot realise the full potential of their crops.”

He said the Minister will have the right to revoke or suspend a felling licence or approval in the Bill, which is entering the report stage before it goes to the Seanad. The Minister may alter the terms and conditions in a contract, such as species selection.

IFA proposes that farmers at all times be given the right to realise the full potential of their crop and retain the right to manage their forests in a sustainable manner including control over selection of species and silvicultural practices.

“Under the current bill, the Minister can attach or vary conditions to any licences granted, including dictating the species to be replanted,” said Fleming. “The forest owner must have an input into species selection and other future management practices.”

The IFA is objecting to a number of aspects in the bill, including the introduction of fees, which will act as a disincentive to farmers to convert land to forestry.

While changes have been made to conditions relating to felling licences, the IFA is unhappy with preconditions. “Although the Minister has acknowledged that every application for a felling licence will be determined within a four-month period, there remains the option for this to be extended in certain cases,” said Fleming. ‘‘There needs to be a firm commitment in the bill to a specified timeframe.”

Flexibility

The Irish Timber Growers Association (ITGA), IFA and other stakeholders claim that the Departments is afforded maximum flexibility in relation to timeframes and conditions while the forest owners will have more constraints and less flexibility in managing their resource.

ITGA technical director Donal Whelan has also highlighted the following concerns timber growers have with the bill:

  • Compensation: ITGA maintains that the bill does not address compensation in the event that a felling licence is refused. The association claims that compensation is essential to ensure that landowners have the confidence to afforest or reforest their land, reduce investment risk and ensure that the greatest care is taken by the Forest Service when they are considering the refusal of a licence application. The Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) might be referenced as a model for an amendment to address this issue.
  • Costs to the sector: The potential costs to the sector are a significant cause for concern. The bill states: “The Minister may charge such fees as may be prescribed for the following: a) an application for a licence, approval or registration, or b) any other service provided under the relevant statutory provisions...” Any prescribed fees will add cost and financial burden to owners and the industry and will result in reduced felling licence applications and, consequently, decrease wood mobility.
  • Prompt issuing of felling licences: In amendment 79, four months are proposed as a time period for issuing a felling licence. This is followed by a section which effectively allows an extension for an unspecified period if the Forest Service is overburdened. It is essential that this open-ended approach is changed and the NI Forestry Act could be referenced as a model for an amendment.
  • Term of felling licence: A felling licence should be for a longer period than 10 years as is proposed in an amendment and should include all thinnings up to the final felling of a forest. The requirement to apply or reapply for a felling licence every 10 years is unnecessary and administratively costly for all parties.
  • Replanting obligations: The bill proposes that forest land be replanted after it is felled. Further, the bill envisages that the Minister may prescribe species to be planted on such lands. This provision to dictate species selection will cause concern and slow the development of the sector and, in the absence of compensation for loss of earnings, it will add risk and cost for forest owners. The bill must be amended to allow replanting at least on a ‘like for like’ basis.
  • John Phelan. managing director of Woodland Managers Limited, supported the points raised by ITGA and IFA, “both of whom have made serious observations” he said. “It is not too late for the Minister to take stock on this and listen and show respect for the sector and the strains and stresses [experienced] by many owners and managers,” he said, referring to the recent forest windblow. “We need leadership at times like this… and who actually believes that we need legislation in a form that will discourage essential investment of land and capital?”

    Michael Fleming believes the bill “will dictate the regulation of the industry for many years ahead and it is vital that this legislation does not act as a barrier to individuals entering forestry”. He said: “The Minister and his Department must reconsider the points outlined by the IFA and other stakeholders if the industry is to grow and prosper.”