DEAR EDITOR

Regarding the letter on forestry and climate from Michael Boyle, Foxford, Co Mayo, 7 June. After 50 years working as a forester in both State and private sectors, I would like to make the following comments.

Forest policy in the 1980s and up to recent times was influenced more by using it as a tool to reform CAP, ie help reduce beef mountains and milk lakes than efficiently produce timber.

The result was to cover as much ground as possible with trees – old foresters used to call the expansion “political” acres.

If timber was the prime objective, what should we have done differently? While I would agree with Michael that pit or spade planting is ideal on dry ground, on wet ground mounding is the only option to get rid of water.

The situation could be improved by pushing the mound away from edge of the drain, but the main cause of windblow is the monoculture of Sitka spruce along the western seaboard and the policy and methods used in the thinning operation.

Great research was done by the old Forest Service on the Ballyhoura mountains that showed if you planted Sitka spruce in an intimate mixture with other species, eg birch, slow growing pine etc you would finish up with a stable high-quality stand of Sitka spruce after 30 to 40 years.

Landscape values

While it was not the objective at the time, the mixtures delivered huge environmental and landscape values. I agree with Coillte’s three-pronged mission statement: produce timber for housing, recreation to improve the population’s mental and physical health, and deliver environmental values, but how does that policy translate down at farm level?

This needs a lot more thought if forestry is to have a sustainable base on a farm.

The very poor uptake of agro forestry shows farmers are unwilling to engage because there is little clarity in how it fits with their current enterprises.

Some, no doubt, will be attracted by the grants and premiums, but many will be thinking about their legacy – what are they handing over to their children?