Sir, - State forestry, with its forest based industry, is one of the great but mostly unsung successes of modern Ireland. This success is now being recognised, and the Government's Strategic Plan for the Forestry Sector, published under the title "Growing for the Future", is to be welcomed in so far as it promises to double the area under forest in the next 35 years. Our confidence in the department's attitude, however, must be slightly undermined by its recent action in lowering the rank assigned to the post of its chief forestry inspector, a puzzling move in the circumstances.
The planting of broadleaves is to be promoted to the extent of 20 per cent of the total area planted, mostly in the private enterprise and farming sectors, and for reasons which seem to owe more to ideology than economic analysis. If we examine the money predictions, we discover that almost one third of the total spending on planting grants is allocated to one fifth of the total area, to produce crops which at best will produce less than a quarter of the quantity of wood per hectare compared with conifer crops, and will take more than twice as long to do even that. This is less than one eighth of the productivity of conifers. Expressed otherwise, every pound spent on broadleaf planting will be about one tenth as effective, in terms of material produced, as a pound spent on conifer planting. Perhaps that is what people want for our money, but they should know exactly what they are being offered.
And no consideration at all is given to the question of what will happen to those broadleaf plantations when the annual premium payments stop after 15 years (for non farmers) or 20 (for farmers), and with no prospect, in most cases, of any significant income for decades to come. Do the owners perhaps believe that it will then be possible to bulldoze the broadleaf areas and start again with some other income generating land use? This matter needs to be clarified. Any commercial plantation, or planting programme, with suitable land might be expected to carry 5-10 per cent of broadleaf forest. But the medium to long term implications of individual investments' devoted mostly or wholly to broadleaves need to be set out very clearly.
Some carefully worded passages signal the hiving off of advisory functions from the department's Forest Service to Teagasc. (What is the real motivation behind this move?) Any separation of advisory and control functions is sure to lead to poor service and to conflict. Until recently, a farmer or investor who followed the advice of his local forestry inspector could be reasonably confident that his grant application would be successful. The proposed arrangement will lead to a situations where advice will be geared primarily towards securing maximum grants and premiums rather than promoting good forestry a tendency which is developing even under present arrangements.
About research, one can only repeat that the level of resources devoted to forest research, particularly in terms of permanently employed researchers working on long term projects, is totally inadequate to meet the needs of even a minimalist forestry programme, let alone that which is proposed in this document.
There are good things in this strategic plan, if they are implemented, and it is at least comforting to realise that some official misgivings about the quality of maintenance in respect of some recent forest investments are beginning to surface. We may look forward to the National Sustainable Forestry Plan, promised in Section 4.3.36, but ought we to be worried that the great bulk of the listed "strategic actions" have no target dates attached? - Yours, etc.,
Former chief inspector,
State Forest Service, Mapas Road,
Dalkey, Co Dublin.