felling debate

Joe Barry

February 19 2008 04:48 AM

Over the past few months, sections of mature woodland have been clearfelled near the picturesque Acres Lake area, near Drumshanbo, and this is creating a dramatic change to the landscape. As a result, timber production and its impact on both landscape and tourism are receiving a lot of negative press coverage in Co Leitrim.

However, many of the comments appear to miss the fact that all landowners are entitled to a return on their investment and this highlights the gap in understanding between growers, foresters and the public.

The clearfelling of mature woodland that is at the heart of this controversy is occurring in a scenic spot that is of real importance to the local tourist trade. It also highlights the manner in which people sometimes complain loudly when land is planted and then make even louder protests when the same trees are being felled.

It's a very complex issue and one that needs fresh thinking. The owner of the trees presumably planted them with the intention of harvesting them someday. That is the main reason why we plant trees. But on the other hand clearfelling, especially in areas with a high amenity value, creates such a negative visual impact that some form of compromise seems desirable.

We urgently need to address all of the issues relating to the many non-wood benefits that trees bestow. In most cases where trees are planted, the landscape is improved and there are environmental and recreational benefits. These have a real cash value to the public. The very presence of trees enriches scenic spots all over Ireland and this in turn benefits the tourism industry.

Trees soak up carbon and give us cleaner air and the owners of all woodland should receive payment for these non-wood benefits and a further payment for the loss of income if the trees are left standing. Many areas of forest could, of course, be allowed to grow on and be managed solely for amenity purposes. They could also be managed on a continuous cover basis, harvesting single stems and allowing young trees to grow through to the canopy. This system of management prevents the visual shock of total clearfell and is better for the environment in that the habitat the woodland creates is never lost. But there is a high cost as, clearly, harvesting individual trees is expensive. It is not logical to expect the owner to suffer these extra costs when the benefits of this expensive management are enjoyed by the entire nation. The sensitive management of woodland in areas of high amenity can deliver a real cash return to local communities. We urgently need an imaginative scheme whereby this can be achieved without the owners suffering financial penalties.

Forestry should never be seen as a threat, but rather as an opportunity to provide multiple landscape and recreation benefits with huge habitat enhancement. Up to now, owners of woodland have never been paid for these benefits. It's time to sit down and work out viable schemes whereby woodland owners can plant mixed species and slow maturing broadleaves without incurring the inevitable financial losses that come with growing these trees. We need all the fast-growing conifers we can produce, and clearfelling them on maturity is the most economical way of harvesting them. But we also need to address the impact this has on scenic areas and find a means of rewarding landowners for planting alternative species in sensitive areas, and using harvesting systems that are costly but do not denude hillsides of their attractive trees.

It is now widely accepted that growing slow maturing broadleaves does not pay. The person who plants them is effectively making a cash donation to the nation, yet our Forest Service has never publicly admitted this fact. Our national planting targets are hopelessly off line, yet each year our politicians and the Forest Service hierarchy wonder why farmers are not planting more.

It's a well-known fact that often people cannot see the wood for the trees.