Ireland will need a substantial forestry programme, sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, to achieve our goal of net zero emissions of greenhouse gases. If between now and 2050 we can plant trees on a tenth of our farmland, that could remove over an eighth of our emissions. If we can’t sequester more carbon through additional forestry, we simply won’t reach our internationally agreed climate objective of getting to net zero by 2050.
While many of the other measures to decarbonise our society, such as retrofitting our housing stock, will be expensive, investing in forestry will potentially be profitable for the landowners involved, and also benefit our wider economy.
Furthermore, there can be double benefits if the harvested timber is used in construction. Firstly, that prolongs the carbon capture for the lifetime of the buildings concerned. Secondly, if timber-based building technologies, substituting for concrete products, are adopted, then the huge energy demand and emissions from our cement industry would be reduced. The recently announced concrete block levy could incentivise a switch towards more climate-friendly building materials and methods.
Planting more trees is a vital strand in our portfolio of policies for tackling climate change. However, progress in implementing this highly desirable policy has completely stalled as a result of the present system of forestry licensing. This requires a detailed assessment of each application to plant forestry, to thin the trees, or to harvest the timber at maturity. It’s a slow, cumbersome, and expensive system, and thoroughly off-putting.
Any significant tree planting is subject, under EU law, to much more rigorous control than other agricultural activity
The alternative is a simple regulatory system where forest promoters would be obliged to comply with the rules or face the threat of prosecution. However, a recent legal review for the Department of Agriculture suggests that European law would not permit such a common-sense approach.
Any significant tree planting is subject, under EU law, to much more rigorous control than other agricultural activity. There are no controls preventing a farmer from switching from pasture to growing a crop, or for switching from barley to wheat, but planting even a hectare of trees is subject to extreme vetting.
Rulings by the European Court of Justice, over a number of different cases, have held that would-be forestry projects must demonstrate with certainty that not a single protected animal or bird will be affected. Setting the bar at the level of “certainty” makes it all but impossible to authorise forestry without a huge amount of research. It also means that a general study of a region is not acceptable; instead, each individual forestry project, even if it only involves a couple of hectares, has to be subject to the same checks.
In addition, it is not sufficient to examine a project just when the trees are first planted. Because a protected bird or animal might set up a home near a new wood, separate vetting is needed each time a wood is thinned, if a forest road is to be built, and, finally, when the trees are to be harvested.
Regulatory burden
Reducing the share of their land devoted to unprofitable beef farming, and planting trees instead, should be a win-win for individual farmers and for the environment, with lower methane emissions and more carbon capture. However, over the lifetime of any wood, farmers know they may face a series of licensing rounds, to plant, thin, and harvest their trees, or to build forest access roads. Each application may be subject to appeal or potentially judicial review.
As a laggard in terms of forest cover, Ireland needs practical EU laws that encourage, rather than hinder, new planting
Even though a lot of the costs of the licensing rounds for forestry are now carried by the State, the time and uncertainty involved make the regulatory burden for landowners impossible to justify. It’s only the very big forestry projects that are worth the effort. Small wonder, then, that few farmers are embarking on a partial switch of land use to forestry. So our national planting targets are way behind.
Northern Europe features pockets of woodland dotted across the landscape, encouraging a variety of wildlife. However, developing such a diverse set of habitats in Ireland is precluded by current EU law, and its judicial interpretation, as the system favours only large-scale projects that are worth going through the hoops. As a laggard in terms of forest cover, Ireland needs practical EU laws that encourage, rather than hinder, new planting.
There is a trade-off between protecting every single bird, and the bigger picture of saving the planet through sustainable afforestation. Our ministers and MEPs need to fight for EU laws that strike a better balance between climate change and biodiversity.
