When Andrew Doyle, Minister of State with responsibility for forestry launched the midterm forestry review earlier this year, most of the interest was directed towards the afforestation, woodland improvement and roading measures. However, support measures also play an important role in delivering a viable forestry programme, especially the Knowledge Transfer Group (KTG) scheme.

The aim of the KTG measure is to increase the level of forest management activity among participating forest owners, and to increase their awareness of the value of their forests with particular emphasis on wood mobilisation.

The KTGs, which will be rolled out later this year are based on three successful pilot schemes carried out in Clare, Donegal and Limerick-Tipperary in 2017.

“The introduction of KTGs is a key strategy of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) to promote better forest management among private forest owners,” maintained a DAFM spokesperson as “forest owners will learn from the experts and from each others’ experiences within a discussion group setting”. She said KTGs would:

  • Help consolidate small dispersed forestry units into single management blocks that have sufficient scale to make forest management operations economical, while still being managed by the respective owners.
  • Encourage forest owners to join forestry/producer groups.
  • Serve as a means by which forest owners can come into contact with professional foresters.
  • “While the KTG structure is geared towards participants learning from each other’s experiences, it is important that qualified foresters are present to add to the quality of information being exchanged,” said the DAFM spokesperson. “Experienced foresters who have practical knowledge in harvesting and selling timber on behalf of clients are therefore suitable candidates to fill the role of facilitators in KTGs.”

    She maintained that the KTG pilot demonstrated that professional foresters acting as facilitators worked very well. In a national forestry KTG scheme, these foresters may themselves be employed by forestry companies or they may organise KTGs themselves.

    Regarding a possible conflict of interest arising as a result of direct involvement by foresters and/or forestry companies as organisers, she said: “It is difficult to see a way in which the risk of a potential conflict of interest could be fully eliminated without removing the professional foresters from the KTG organisation structure altogether.”

    When asked if the involvement by foresters should be at the behest of the producer groups only, as proposed by Michael Ryan (see panel), she said that the Department sees a role for both producer groups and foresters in organising KTGs but acknowledged that it “is important that all KTG organisers, whether they are producer groups, forestry companies or consultants, deliver the training content in an impartial manner”.

    To ensure this outcome the following provisions are included in the KTG terms and conditions:

  • DAFM forestry inspectors will spot check up to six KTG meetings per application.
  • Teagasc will have a half-hour slot in all KTGs to highlight the options available to forest owners when deciding on who they should choose for forest management services.
  • Teagasc will be involved at the planning stages of each KTG.
  • All agree on the importance of KTGs although there is some disagreement on who delivers the scheme. Michael Ryan former chair of the Limerick-Tipperary Producer Group and Paul Finnegan, forestry consultant outline their views.

    The role of forestry consultants

    The establishment of KTGs is a timely initiative and very much welcomed. Farmers with forests are very eager to learn and engage with foresters so they can learn how to manage their forests to maximise their benefits. It gives them a structure to engage with foresters and to give themselves the tools to make decisions about the management of their forests. The following are a number of relevant points based on my own experience of delivering a KTG:

  • The scheme should be delivered by foresters to forest owners. Foresters have the experience and practical knowledge that the forest owners require.
  • The EU legislation stipulates that the knowledge transfer provider shall be the beneficiary of the support. This is important because as well as transferring knowledge to the people that require it – mainly farmers – the people with the knowledge – foresters – are sustained in the local areas where the technical knowledge is required.
  • As consultant forester, I delivered one of the pilot KTGs as organiser, administrator and facilitator of the group which is similar to the agricultural model. This proved to be a seamless structure whereby the organisation of the KTG and the responsibilities of the person delivering the scheme were clear and everyone benefited.
  • I believe that if foresters have satisfied the Forest Service requirements to deliver the scheme then there is no need for these foresters to be subsequently further vetted by any other organisation or group.
  • Foresters have been engaged in knowledge transfer for many years in dealing with client queries and problems as they arise on an ad hoc one-to-one basis, free in most cases. The KTG scheme allows farmers to seek the specific knowledge they require while receiving a payment for their attendance and also facilitating the forester to benefit from the delivery of their knowledge.
  • The participants of the KTGs should be free to select their own service provider as they are for all other FS schemes.
  • The role of forest owner groups

    Knowledge is power. If organisations and individuals are equipped with the required knowledge they will carry out their businesses more satisfactorily. Equally importantly, they cannot be so easily exploited by others who already possess these skills. Large-scale private afforestation since the 1990s wasn’t accompanied by a comprehensive training, skills and information programme so many farm forest owners have not learned how to manage their forest resource effectively. As a result, some have paid for services which they could have provided themselves. In a small number of cases, owners have been exploited by service providers.

    This is changing and the formation of Forest Owner Groups, supported by Teagasc, has provided an important vehicle for information. Despite their voluntary nature, limited resources and lack of tangible support, these have brought a new degree of awareness of good forestry practice to thousands of their members across Ireland.

    The KTGs take this a step further illustrated by the Limerick & Tipperary Woodland Owners Ltd (LTWO), which launched a pilot scheme in 2017, funded by the Forest Service (FS). This has been a resounding success with hundreds of forest owners taking part, benefitting from each others’ experience and the expertise of the forester employed by LTWO. A full scale scheme is now being announced, which plans to include forestry companies as organisers and facilitators. I believe that this is a serious retrograde step.

    There is a clear conflict of interest in having any entity which is a provider of services to forest owners providing training to those same owners. The best scenario is that forestry farmers just like dairy or beef farmers, should manage their own businesses. I have no issue with forest owners using the services of forestry consultants or companies provided they are equipped with an independently acquired level of forestry and management skills and can therefore critically assess the services being offered.

    The integrity of the KTG scheme is now in question, as it can no longer guarantee that the information imparted, will be independent and unbiased. There is a wide range of services that forestry companies can usefully provide but impartial knowledge transfer is not one of them.