Growing ambitions for the forestry sector
SEEFA’s forestry hub hosted six panel discussions, all discussing the state of the country’s forestry sector with a focus on planting strategies, financial supports, sustainability, biodiversity, land use and the critical role of the sector in securing Ireland’s emissions reductions targets. All panel discussions were chaired by former Offaly hurler, Michael Duignan, but for the purpose of this article we concentrate on the panel that featured: Professor Cathal O’Donoghue, chair of Social and Public Policy at the University of Galway; Conor Daly, managing director of The Forestry Company and treasurer of SEEFA; Padraig Stapleton, Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA) Forestry Committee chair; and Michael Healy-Rae, Minister of State with special responsibility for Forestry, Farm Safety and Horticulture at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM).
Setting out the parameters for discussion, the chair said: “On the economic front, we’ll ask our panel to make clear how forestry supports farm income, rural jobs and the wider community, and to highlight near-term steps that improve returns and reduce risk. We will examine how timber production cuts emissions compared with imports and that higher planting is needed.”
The carbon gap
The panel discussion and subsequent audience participation heard differing opinions on how best to promote increased planting. Calls for a dedicated forestry development agency were met with a firm rebuttal from the minister, while he assured forest owners of his total commitment to the sector.
Professor Cathal O’ Donoghue provided background to current afforestation statistics. “At the foundation of the State, only 1 per cent of the land area was covered in forestry. That is now 11 per cent. We often focus on the present, forgetting that forestry is a huge success story. It’s the biggest land use change since Irish independence.” But, he added, the current target of 8,000 hectares per annum is not enough for us to achieve carbon neutrality from agricultural and forestry land use by 2050 under the Climate Action Plan. He stated: “Twelve years ago, the department set a target to reach 18 per cent of our land area covered by forestry by 2050. We have done land-use modelling at Galway university and delivering on that target would have required planting 14,000 hectares every year.” He continued: “We found that about half of all farmers in the long-run would be better off planting forestry than their existing land use. There are good returns. They’re tax free, with a premium initially, and free of income tax at harvesting.
“We have a carbon tax on fossil fuels. The State places a cost on the carbon that we emit and, by implication, there's a value on the carbon that’s stored in trees. If you were to pay for that carbon, you’d find that 85 per cent of farmers would be better off planting forestry at €100/tonne, which would be the carbon price in 2030. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform more than doubled their carbon pricing values last December. A cost/benefit analysis for any State investment in carbon storage would show a positive return for investing in sequestering carbon in forestry. We don’t currently price it. The existing scheme is worth €40 per tonne between the premium, the establishment grant, and the value of the tax allowance. There’s a big gap between that and what a carbon value payment would deliver.”
Land use competition
IFA Forestry Committee chair, Padraig Stapleton highlighted land use options competing with forestry: “Currently, you can rent your land out for 10 years tax free, after which you can use the land as you wish. The current forestry programme commits the landowner to permanent afforestation. The disappearance of Ash as a planting choice means that there is no commercial broadleaf planting option. Most other broadleaf species take hundreds of years to mature. With the broadleaf requirement, after the premiums end, there is no commercial return for several generations, unlike Sitka, which can mature in 35 to 40 years. That model has to change, otherwise farmers won’t sign up to it.”
SEEFA treasurer, Conor Daly, had a strong view on Sitka planting: “The days of planting one 100 per cent Sitka are gone. I believe there will be payments for biodiversity in the future. Forestry would benefit from that. So, planting with 15 per cent open space and 20 per cent broadleaves, should deliver a financial benefit in the years ahead.
“I think there’s a great opportunity in the voluntary carbon market for farmers to get paid for planting their land and getting a carbon payment benefit. Forestry owners can get their carbon measured, validated and certified and put on the voluntary carbon market.”
Land eligibility
Joining in on the debate, Minister Healy-Rae had this to say: “Sometimes people who think they know a lot, actually know very little about what they’re talking about. They say that it’s an absolute no-no to plant on bogland. I am not for one second suggesting, and never did, that we should be planting on deep peat ground. What I propose is allowing planting on peaty-type soils that you couldn’t cut a sod of turf from if you tried for a hundred years. Peaty soils are not turf bogs, neither are they mineral soils. They are grass-covered marginal soils, perfectly suitable for planting. I have put €2.7m into researching proof that there is nothing wrong with planting those peaty-type sites on marginal agricultural lands.” He went on to highlight the absolute necessity for house building, and the role of timber in that.
He said: “What I don’t want is for us to be importing timber from Scotland or Brazil. I want us to have our own timber. I want us to be harvesting timber from Irish land, cutting it up in our own sawmills and used to build houses in this country. That’s the most environmentally sensible thing you could be doing.”
Forestry development agency – yay or nay?
Professor O’Donoghue proposed that a forestry development agency would drive on the sector, and is necessary. Reaching this conclusion, he said: “I split increased afforestation delivery into three requirements. One is financial. Another is eliminating bureaucratic challenges, as outlined in the McKinnon report. Nevertheless, the replanting obligation is a big psychological impediment. If you’re committing your land out of agriculture forever, it’s very hard to make that choice, even if the likelihood is that in 40 years’ time, people would replant anyway. If the incentives and returns are there, you’re likely to stay in forestry. The final big challenge is the way we organise ourselves. I believe we need a development agency to promote and drive forestry forward.”
The IFA has a similar mindset, and Padraig added: “I would love to see such a development agency. Forestry is the only natural resource that doesn’t have one.” SEEFA’s representative, Conor, said that such an agency would be a legacy initiative for the current minister, who duly responded: “I don’t agree on the need for a development agency. I am the forestry development agency and it’s my responsibility and I don’t need any other group to hold my hand. I will work with all the organisations. I will work with everybody in the department, but I don’t need what I would consider an additional layer, a bureaucracy, to tell me or anybody else what to do. It won’t happen while I’m in charge. My ambition for 2026 is to plant 4,000 hectares, which hasn’t been reached for a very long time. That is still only half of what we should be doing.” He added that he is liaising with councils to identify surplus lands that would be suitable for afforestation. He said: “The local authorities have a lot of surplus land that could be devoted to forestry. Much of it can’t be used for housing. It can’t be used for any type of critical infrastructure and could be planted. I’m not saying it would all be suitable for forestry but a lot of it might be suitable for forestry of some type and we are working very closely with the councils on utilising surplus land they have for some form of afforestation.”