Forest owners believe that when faced with a crisis, they will receive a fair hearing from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) when seeking redress.
They point to the DAFM’s €100m beef fund for the struggling beef sector and other initiatives such as last year’s fodder scheme.
These schemes partly compensate for losses which are outside the control of farmers.
Likewise, losses incurred due to drought, fire, windblow and disease are outside the control of forest owners, but they receive less attention from the media.
Reconstitution schemes
The response by the Forest Service – the forest authority within DAFM – to damage caused by these events and agents is generally addressed by the provision of reconstitution schemes.
These partially compensate for damage caused but do not recompense owners for the long-term loss of income.
Reconstitution grants are no longer available for fire damage, as forest owners are expected to carry fire insurance.
As in all reconstitution grants, DAFM states: “Failure to reconstitute a damaged grant-aided plantation is a breach of the afforestation grant and premium schemes and may result in recoupment of all grants and premiums paid.”
Ash dieback
Regardless of the terms and payments of the various DAFM reconstitution schemes, owners with damaged crops will lose considerable future income, none more so than owners of plantations and woodlands with Chalara ash dieback.
After this disease was detected in 2012, DAFM introduced a Reconstitution Scheme (Chalara Ash Dieback) for young plantations, and a Woodland Improvement Scheme for tending and thinning semi-mature woodlands.
As an increasing number of ash woodland owners are discovering the disease, they are finding that avenues for compensation are closed, as the Ash Reconstitution Scheme was suspended in April 2018 “to allow for a comprehensive review,” according to Minister Andrew Doyle.
Submissions to the review are being assessed by DAFM and the Minister recently told members of the Joint Oireachtas Committee that findings will be issued “shortly”.
Ash and farmers
Ash is a species farmers readily identify with, as it is a prominent hedgerow tree and the only species suitable for making hurleys.
It featured strongly in afforestation programmes at the turn of the century and forest owners – mainly farmers – planted up to 800ha annually. That’s 30% of the total broadleaf planting programme.
Ash is a species that requires good land, so losses are all the greater as income foregone is high and owners cannot return the land to agriculture because of the replanting obligation.
The ash dieback saga has really highlighted the risk factor of forestry.
While ash is a relatively fast growing species, it still requires a rotation length of 60 years to reach full maturity.
However, it provides a major source of income between 25 and 35 years for hurley making, when revenue can be up to €24,200/ha.
Ash butts can fetch between €32 and €40 each providing an income of approximately €17,800 with additional revenue of €6,400 for larger firewood.
Additional losses are incurred because diseased ash won’t achieve its full commercial market potential for furniture manufacture.
Woodland owners with ash dieback may, at best, salvage some trees for hurleys, but most growers are now resigned to producing firewood.
The repercussions of ash dieback are serious, not just for woodland owners with diseased crops.
The spread of the disease has wider implications as it highlights the long-term risks and implications of insect pest and disease damage.
It is no coincidence – as John O’Connell pointed out to the Joint Oireachtas Committee – that “national afforestation [has] dropped back because of how owners have been treated” in coping with the disease and its aftermath. During this session, one of the options proposed by Colum Walsh, chair of the Limerick-Tipperary Woodland Owners, was “full compensation for loss of earnings due to ash dieback”.
Risk
Forest owners accept that there is always an element of risk attached to forestry just like other land uses.
But the risk to forest owners is compounded as it is generational rather than seasonal. Indeed, losses caused by damage to broadleaves and some conifers such as Scots pine can extend to a number of generations.
John O’Connell is correct that ash growers “have been dealt an unfair hand”. The challenge facing these growers needs to be shared by DAFM.
The Department also has to acknowledge its role in meeting this problem by accepting that the forestry programme is a public-private partnership.
This requires the creation of an ash dieback fund that would recompense owners for the damage caused by a disease they have played no part, either in its introduction or inexorable spread.
A recent event held in Callan, Co Kilkenny, organised by Teagasc and the Forest Service, demonstrated management options for woodland owners of ash stands, including those affected by ash dieback.
The event, which took place in a 22-year-old private ash woodland managed by Irish Wood Producers, was first held in 2016. Management options include:
Normal thinning; taking out any trees showing signs of disease and removing trees competing in the canopy with Potential Crop Trees (PCTs) – vigorous healthy trees.Free-growth; selected PCTs are freed entirely from competition by felling all adjacent trees that are competing, or are likely to compete, within the next four years in the canopy. This provides the conditions for rapid growth of the selected PCTs.Small-coupe or group felling; 16 coupes/ha of 20m diameter, are felled and replanted with a mixture of suitable alternative species.Removal of four tree rows from every eight rows and replanting with a mixture of species, leaving three lines standing along with the extraction racks.Dr Ian Short said the objectives of these forest managment methods were to increase future woodland resilience and where appropriate, have a new crop of suitable species. It is recommended that these options, including species choice for replanting, should be specific to the site and crop conditions and meet the owner’s objectives.
Research
A breeding programme for resistance in ash aims to develop resistant ash seeds within 10 to 15 years, which would provide a mid-term solution to the ash dieback crisis.
Dr Miguel Nemesio-Gorriz explained that Teagasc has collected over 200 resistant ash genotypes since 2017, through collaboration with eight European institutions.
Research is also ongoing into micro-propagation of resistant ash in a laboratory.
Once ash is successfully micro-propagated, it is possible to make an unlimited number of copies without the need of rootstocks or grafting. These copies can be used for establishing seed orchards for resistant seed.
While this work shows significant promise, it will take some time to identify suitable genotypes and produce future resistant ash planting stock.
Concerns
Almost 150 forest owners attended the event and responded well to the research and management options. However, feedback from woodland owners pointed to significant concerns regarding the future of their own ash plantations.
*Tom Houlihan is a forestry specialist with Teagasc
Read more
The monoculture myth
Farmer tree project to address climate change locally
Minister Doyle's review of forestry approvals process welcomed
Forest owners believe that when faced with a crisis, they will receive a fair hearing from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) when seeking redress.
They point to the DAFM’s €100m beef fund for the struggling beef sector and other initiatives such as last year’s fodder scheme.
These schemes partly compensate for losses which are outside the control of farmers.
Likewise, losses incurred due to drought, fire, windblow and disease are outside the control of forest owners, but they receive less attention from the media.
Reconstitution schemes
The response by the Forest Service – the forest authority within DAFM – to damage caused by these events and agents is generally addressed by the provision of reconstitution schemes.
These partially compensate for damage caused but do not recompense owners for the long-term loss of income.
Reconstitution grants are no longer available for fire damage, as forest owners are expected to carry fire insurance.
As in all reconstitution grants, DAFM states: “Failure to reconstitute a damaged grant-aided plantation is a breach of the afforestation grant and premium schemes and may result in recoupment of all grants and premiums paid.”
Ash dieback
Regardless of the terms and payments of the various DAFM reconstitution schemes, owners with damaged crops will lose considerable future income, none more so than owners of plantations and woodlands with Chalara ash dieback.
After this disease was detected in 2012, DAFM introduced a Reconstitution Scheme (Chalara Ash Dieback) for young plantations, and a Woodland Improvement Scheme for tending and thinning semi-mature woodlands.
As an increasing number of ash woodland owners are discovering the disease, they are finding that avenues for compensation are closed, as the Ash Reconstitution Scheme was suspended in April 2018 “to allow for a comprehensive review,” according to Minister Andrew Doyle.
Submissions to the review are being assessed by DAFM and the Minister recently told members of the Joint Oireachtas Committee that findings will be issued “shortly”.
Ash and farmers
Ash is a species farmers readily identify with, as it is a prominent hedgerow tree and the only species suitable for making hurleys.
It featured strongly in afforestation programmes at the turn of the century and forest owners – mainly farmers – planted up to 800ha annually. That’s 30% of the total broadleaf planting programme.
Ash is a species that requires good land, so losses are all the greater as income foregone is high and owners cannot return the land to agriculture because of the replanting obligation.
The ash dieback saga has really highlighted the risk factor of forestry.
While ash is a relatively fast growing species, it still requires a rotation length of 60 years to reach full maturity.
However, it provides a major source of income between 25 and 35 years for hurley making, when revenue can be up to €24,200/ha.
Ash butts can fetch between €32 and €40 each providing an income of approximately €17,800 with additional revenue of €6,400 for larger firewood.
Additional losses are incurred because diseased ash won’t achieve its full commercial market potential for furniture manufacture.
Woodland owners with ash dieback may, at best, salvage some trees for hurleys, but most growers are now resigned to producing firewood.
The repercussions of ash dieback are serious, not just for woodland owners with diseased crops.
The spread of the disease has wider implications as it highlights the long-term risks and implications of insect pest and disease damage.
It is no coincidence – as John O’Connell pointed out to the Joint Oireachtas Committee – that “national afforestation [has] dropped back because of how owners have been treated” in coping with the disease and its aftermath. During this session, one of the options proposed by Colum Walsh, chair of the Limerick-Tipperary Woodland Owners, was “full compensation for loss of earnings due to ash dieback”.
Risk
Forest owners accept that there is always an element of risk attached to forestry just like other land uses.
But the risk to forest owners is compounded as it is generational rather than seasonal. Indeed, losses caused by damage to broadleaves and some conifers such as Scots pine can extend to a number of generations.
John O’Connell is correct that ash growers “have been dealt an unfair hand”. The challenge facing these growers needs to be shared by DAFM.
The Department also has to acknowledge its role in meeting this problem by accepting that the forestry programme is a public-private partnership.
This requires the creation of an ash dieback fund that would recompense owners for the damage caused by a disease they have played no part, either in its introduction or inexorable spread.
A recent event held in Callan, Co Kilkenny, organised by Teagasc and the Forest Service, demonstrated management options for woodland owners of ash stands, including those affected by ash dieback.
The event, which took place in a 22-year-old private ash woodland managed by Irish Wood Producers, was first held in 2016. Management options include:
Normal thinning; taking out any trees showing signs of disease and removing trees competing in the canopy with Potential Crop Trees (PCTs) – vigorous healthy trees.Free-growth; selected PCTs are freed entirely from competition by felling all adjacent trees that are competing, or are likely to compete, within the next four years in the canopy. This provides the conditions for rapid growth of the selected PCTs.Small-coupe or group felling; 16 coupes/ha of 20m diameter, are felled and replanted with a mixture of suitable alternative species.Removal of four tree rows from every eight rows and replanting with a mixture of species, leaving three lines standing along with the extraction racks.Dr Ian Short said the objectives of these forest managment methods were to increase future woodland resilience and where appropriate, have a new crop of suitable species. It is recommended that these options, including species choice for replanting, should be specific to the site and crop conditions and meet the owner’s objectives.
Research
A breeding programme for resistance in ash aims to develop resistant ash seeds within 10 to 15 years, which would provide a mid-term solution to the ash dieback crisis.
Dr Miguel Nemesio-Gorriz explained that Teagasc has collected over 200 resistant ash genotypes since 2017, through collaboration with eight European institutions.
Research is also ongoing into micro-propagation of resistant ash in a laboratory.
Once ash is successfully micro-propagated, it is possible to make an unlimited number of copies without the need of rootstocks or grafting. These copies can be used for establishing seed orchards for resistant seed.
While this work shows significant promise, it will take some time to identify suitable genotypes and produce future resistant ash planting stock.
Concerns
Almost 150 forest owners attended the event and responded well to the research and management options. However, feedback from woodland owners pointed to significant concerns regarding the future of their own ash plantations.
*Tom Houlihan is a forestry specialist with Teagasc
Read more
The monoculture myth
Farmer tree project to address climate change locally
Minister Doyle's review of forestry approvals process welcomed
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: