Coillte is willing to consider mediation to resolve disputes with landowners involved in farm partnership agreements with the forestry body.

Although the State company insisted that there was no change in its policy regarding farm partnerships that are in dispute, the acceptance of mediation is significant.

Serious allegations have been levelled at Coillte regarding its treatment of farmers who have challenged the company’s management of forests planted under partnership agreements.

Coillte told the Irish Farmers Journal that it accepted that a “small number of farm partners have invoked the arbitration clause” in the partnership agreements as a consequence of these disputes. However, it said this action “does not impede either party from considering other dispute resolution approaches as appropriate”.

“Coillte continues to be open to exploring alternative dispute mechanisms with individual farm partners that may lead to a more expediated and successful resolution for all parties involved, including mediation,” the forestry company stated.

Coillte’s statement follows a parliamentary question posed by Independent Ireland TD Michael Fitzmaurice about disputes between Coillte and landowners.

In response, the Minister for Agriculture Charlie McConalogue stated: “Coillte is open to exploring alternative dispute mechanisms which may lead to an expedited and successful resolution for all parties involved, including mediation.

“I am satisfied that any issues will be resolved in due course, through the appropriate channels, and that it should be left now to both partners in the agreements to resolve them together.”

However, Minister McConalogue refused to comment on specific cases .

“Arbitration is a private and confidential dispute resolution process, with confidentiality obligations on the parties and therefore Coillte is not in a position to comment in respect of such cases,” he said.

Last year a number of landowners who are in dispute with Coillte outlined their grievances to the Oireachtas Agriculture Committee.

The landowners claimed that they had not been paid for thinnings from their plantations and no breakdown of the weight of timber harvested during the thinning process was provided.

This is despite the partnership agreement stating that the landowners were entitled to 80% of the profits from such operations.

There have also been complaints around the general management of the plantations, about poor fencing and drainage, and insufficient fertiliser being applied to new plantations.

Coillte has refuted these assertions and complaints.