But a recent as yet unpublished report maintains that the availability of enough land to achieve this target even by 2050 ‘is doubtful’ when forestry development constraints are factored in.

The authors of the report — Dr Niall Farrelly and Dr Gerhardt Gallagher — express “serious concerns about the potential level of land available for forestry to meet future targets”.

This conclusion was reached after the report authors assessed all land in Ireland and deleted land which is unavailable for afforestation for a number of reasons. This included land in agriculture, unsuitable land (low nutrient, exposed land), land with statutory — mainly environmental — constraints, land utilised in the built environment (urban and rural housing and other developments) and other restrictions, such as the effective banning of forestry on unenclosed sites.

The authors of the report Classification of Lands Suitable for Afforestation in the Republic of Ireland did not wish to speak about their findings until they are published.

However, the Irish Farmers Journal has received a copy, commissioned by the COFORD Council Land Availability Group and it makes a number of ominous comments on the limitations now placed on forestry development.

At current rates, Irish forest cover is likely to increase at best to 14% of the land area by 2050, little over one third the average EU cover.

The report examines in detail the land that could or should be made available for afforestation without impinging on agriculture. “The proportion of land considered heretofore to be marginal to agricultural production, has reduced with increasing environmental constraints and conservation objectives,” according to the authors.

“Coupled with this, lands already removed from the system for afforestation since 1990 (some 250,000ha of marginal land) and Food Harvest 2020 pressures, the proportion of land remaining [for afforestation] is geographically constrained to the wet mineral lowlands in a few counties.”

The report estimates that 715,000ha of ‘available unencumbered lands of limited agricultural capacity but suitable for forestry’ now remain.

Much of this land is in Cavan and Monaghan and because unenclosed sites have been precluded from afforestation, most planting would need to be concentrated in these counties to achieve the Government’s afforestation targets.

There is undoubted potential for greater afforestation in these counties but historic and recent planting trends indicate that the take-up required is unrealistic. In any case, an afforestation programme concentrated on an area representing 4.6% of the country’s area would be socially and economically undesirable, especially as land suitable for forestry is available and spread over a wider geographical area. This includes 346,000ha of unenclosed land, which the report maintains has an extremely limited capacity for agriculture but is ideally suited to forestry.

Unenclosed land with forestry potential can range from YC4 to 30. It comprises 114,000ha of land with YC14 or less and 232,000ha of YC14 to 30, which is ideally suited to forestry. Yield class (YC) refers to the optimum annual yield of a plantation in cubic metres (m3) per ha.

However, the Forest Service ruling to disallow grant approvals on planting applications with an area over 20% unenclosed land, along with greatly reduced grant and premium payments, has decimated planting on unenclosed land.

As a result, annual afforestation of unenclosed land has been reduced to 1.7%, (114ha) of the total planting programme. In effect, this quality land is locked out of forestry.

The report recommends revisiting these sites, which is favoured by forestry companies and consultants, farmers wishing to plant and organisations, such as the IFA and Society of Irish Foresters.

The authors recommend that current site assessment procedures, based on site productivity “be replaced by site soil/vegetation assessment particularly in the case of unenclosed land”. They also recommend a more creative and silviculturally sound approach to the selection and assessment of suitable species. The report proposes ‘that the criteria of suitability of Sitka spruce be re-examined in the context of other site suitable species, such as Scot’s pine, larch and Douglas fir for the drier sites [and] various broadleaved species — native and non native — where suitable’.

recommendations

The report broadens the argument outside the ‘enclosed versus unenclosed’ debate and makes a number of recommendations which could transform forestry and the afforestation programme if implemented. These will have no adverse impact on agriculture or the environment but would have major benefits in creating a viable afforestation programme.

The authors make the following recommendations to achieve a viable afforestation programme to 1.2 million hectares:

That the remaining unencumbered unenclosed lands should be scientifically evaluated for the their forest productivity potential.

That such lands reaching YC14 be considered under the planting schemes.

That accommodation is sought for forests environmentally compatible with sensitive sites and a rationale for such lower yield sites is constructed.

That the long discussed land use policy for all categories be finally addressed in the light of 21st century issues, including population growth, renewable resources, carbon emissions and global warming, along with environmental and planning issues

It is important that the report is not only adopted by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine but also incorporated into the long awaited forestry review.