The eagerly awaited Review of Approval Processes for Afforestation in Ireland by Jim Mackinnon, CBE, has been launched. Commissioned by The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) last August, Mackinnon has completed a concise review, at a time when Government and public expectations of forestry in Ireland were never higher but where recent performance in afforestation and felling licence approvals were never lower.
MacKinnon draws comparisons between Ireland and Scotland where he completed a similar review. Scotland now achieves an 11,000ha afforestation programme due to “the high political priority given to forestry since 2016 by the cabinet secretary” unlike Ireland where there is a “lack of political commitment and priority from the Irish Government to woodland creation”.
The review title is somewhat misleading as Mackinnon not only examines afforestation but also “the linked issues for other forestry-related operations, ie forest road works and tree felling”. He explains the complex approval processes for afforestation and felling licences and how increasing submissions – objections – from individuals and organisations on applications have slowed the process down.
For example, submissions were made on 10% of applications in 2017, increasing to 50% last year and declining to 43% up to August this year.
The review states: “One individual made 72 submissions on afforestation licences in 2018; the figure rose to 403 at the end of September 2019. If submissions on roads and felling applications are included the figure rises to over 1,000.”
The percentage decided in less than 70 days has fallen consistently with less than 40% decided within this period in 2019
He recommends that “fees should be introduced as a matter of urgency for making a submission on an application and lodging an appeal”.
Some 65% of afforestation applications were decided in 70 days or less in 2015 with 21% in the system for over 99 days.
“The percentage decided in less than 70 days has fallen consistently with less than 40% decided within this period in 2019,” he states and acknowledges that improvement is unlikely.
“In 2019, almost half the applications took over 99 days to decide. The figure does not include applications still under consideration so the proportion taking over 99 days to decide is expected to increase.”
While felling licence applications are recorded differently than afforestation licences, Mackinnon acknowledges a similar trend in delays as only 8% of private licences were issued within four months and 23% within six months by August this year.
He treads carefully on the registered foresters (RFs)-DAFM inspectorate relationship.
“It was suggested that the inspectorate were too focused on individual site appraisal and had lost sight of the bigger picture in relation to forestry’s role in meeting the planting targets in the Climate Action Plan and supporting rural development,” he says.
It seems clear that an overly cautious and risk-averse culture has evolved which has resulted in widespread negative perception of customer service
“There is also evidence that the rate of site inspections has fallen and it is likely that this has been as a result of the Inspectorate’s high workload.”
He also says that “it seems clear that an overly cautious and risk-averse culture has evolved which has resulted in widespread negative perception of customer service”.
However, he is critical of some RFs who submit “poor-quality applications [which] are a source of concern as is a failure to understand the implications of the legal processes under which the various schemes operate, which have been reinforced by recent court judgements”.
He also alludes to recent approval delays due to “the statutory requirement to screen for potentially significant effects on Natura Sites”.
He states: “While all applications must be screened under the Habitats Directive, relatively few numbers have resulted in requests for Natura Impact Statements. However, these requests have risen from less than 15 in 2016 to over 50 in 2019.”
He identifies “the numbers and skills (essentially around meeting the requirements of the Habitats Directive) required in the Department which has affected morale and confidence and the lack of flexibility arising from procedures being set out in legislation (including a third party right of appeal) which are likely to be time consuming to alter”.
The review examines progress of the Forestry Programme Implementation Group (FPIG) chaired by Minister Doyle, as well as the monthly discussions on key performance indicators (KPI).
The KPI meetings discuss “monthly figures on applications submitted, approved and areas planted but it is misleading to describe these figures as KPIs”, he says.
He maintains that these meetings do little to improve performance or achieve targets.
Actions
In all, Mackinnon has suggested 22 actions that would move the sector forward, including:
Strategy – prepare a forestry strategy for Ireland. Profile– raise the political profile and commitment to woodland creation. Elevate the status for the minister responsible for forestry, include forestry in the Department’s name and have the Taoiseach’s Department represented on a forestry programme implementation group. Customer charter – Department should move quickly to produce a customer service charter, which sets out the service relevant stakeholders should expect and receive. Guidance – develop guidance on the Habitats Directive as it affects licensing applications. Monitoring – ensure the Climate Action Delivery Board acts where planting rates continue to falter. Consultation with public bodies (PBs) – revise memoranda of understanding with National Monument Service and National Parks and Wildlife Service. Timescales for PB consultation should be aligned. For example, Mackinnon is not clear “why NPWS should be given twice as long to respond as other bodies”. Applications – focus action on reducing current backlog of applications. Dialogue – introduce pre-application discussions with issues/action log. DAFM staffing – recruit additional inspectors and environmental specialists. Land availability – conduct pilot studies on land availability, including the potential for woodland creation on areas of unenclosed land. Legislation – in the longer-term review the legislation on forestry and consider the introduction of a single consent covering planting, road construction, management and felling.Ensuring Mackinnon’s recommendations are implemented will be a major challenge. Mackinnon’s suggestions to increase the status of forestry minister, the profile of the Department (including incorporating ‘forestry’ in the title) and putting a chief forester in place are welcome.
However, the current Department structure, while serving forestry well from a regulatory and financial management perspective, differs in approach and culture from the highly adaptable State agency that is required. In fact, forestry is the only natural resource sector that has no independent State promotional and development body.
While a proposal for such an organisation was outside the terms of reference of the review, many reports have expressed a need for such an agency.
Forestry stakeholders see the merit in an independent forestry development agency that would support the Department and the sector in achieving Ireland’s demanding afforestation, wood mobilisation and climate change targets.
Jim McKinnon’s review of Scottish afforestation in 2016 prompts him to draw comparisons between both countries. Scotland’s sluggish planting programme has increased to over 11,000ha which begs the question “Why can’t we be more like the Scottish?” While there are similarities between both countries Mackinnon outlines some of the differences.
These include “the high political priority given to forestry since 2016 by the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy in the Scottish Government with farming and forestry seen as complementary sectors of the rural economy”.
He acknowledges the commitment of Minister Doyle but he also points to “greater evidence of partnership working with [the Scottish] Government” where the industry “is focused on delivering the benefits of forestry while engagement with environmental organisations seems more pragmatic and focused on sustainable outcomes”.
He suggests that the “Scottish Government’s Forestry Strategy 2020-2030 is a possible model for the sort of document that is required”.
He also notes the greater opposition to forestry in Ireland and the fragmented nature of Irish forests with small areas averaging 8ha compared with 40ha in Scotland where “schemes of 200ha or more are not uncommon”.
There are also differences in planning afforestation at national and local level. For example, he cites the lack of consultation between foresters and Department inspectors “ prior to submitting license applications”. In addition the conversion rate of license approval to planting in Scotland is much higher than Ireland.
In Scotland the land owner/applicant pays whoever is lodging the application much earlier
Indirectly he addressed the issue of cash flow that Irish registered foresters (RFs) experience and suggests the introduction of fees for submitting applications.
“RFs do not receive their fee until the afforestation licence has been issued, the grant approved and trees planted [which] could take two years or more. In Scotland the land owner/applicant pays whoever is lodging the application much earlier.”
Ireland has disadvantages in expanding the forest resource due to “the 20% limit for planting on unenclosed land” which is not replicated in Scotland.
He says that Irish procedures for afforestation and felling licenses are contained in statute while in Scotland “the processes for woodland creation are non-statutory, except in relation to the transposition of European Environmental Directives”.
The third party right of appeal on applications for afforestation, felling and forest road construction in Ireland does not exist in Scotland.
The equivalent organisations in Scotland are much more engaged and are encouraged to take a proactive role in problem solving
The function of pre-application discussions between RF and inspectorate does not exist in Ireland while “there was little evidence of Public Bodies actively engaging early in the licensing process,” the review claims.
“The equivalent organisations in Scotland are much more engaged and are encouraged to take a proactive role in problem solving. This lack of active engagement is particularly evident in the challenges many Inspectors are having with Appropriate Assessment.”
He is highly complementary of the Department iFORIS system and the supporting GIS which “identifies and locates natural and built heritage resources with a high degree of precision”.
The eagerly awaited Review of Approval Processes for Afforestation in Ireland by Jim Mackinnon, CBE, has been launched. Commissioned by The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) last August, Mackinnon has completed a concise review, at a time when Government and public expectations of forestry in Ireland were never higher but where recent performance in afforestation and felling licence approvals were never lower.
MacKinnon draws comparisons between Ireland and Scotland where he completed a similar review. Scotland now achieves an 11,000ha afforestation programme due to “the high political priority given to forestry since 2016 by the cabinet secretary” unlike Ireland where there is a “lack of political commitment and priority from the Irish Government to woodland creation”.
The review title is somewhat misleading as Mackinnon not only examines afforestation but also “the linked issues for other forestry-related operations, ie forest road works and tree felling”. He explains the complex approval processes for afforestation and felling licences and how increasing submissions – objections – from individuals and organisations on applications have slowed the process down.
For example, submissions were made on 10% of applications in 2017, increasing to 50% last year and declining to 43% up to August this year.
The review states: “One individual made 72 submissions on afforestation licences in 2018; the figure rose to 403 at the end of September 2019. If submissions on roads and felling applications are included the figure rises to over 1,000.”
The percentage decided in less than 70 days has fallen consistently with less than 40% decided within this period in 2019
He recommends that “fees should be introduced as a matter of urgency for making a submission on an application and lodging an appeal”.
Some 65% of afforestation applications were decided in 70 days or less in 2015 with 21% in the system for over 99 days.
“The percentage decided in less than 70 days has fallen consistently with less than 40% decided within this period in 2019,” he states and acknowledges that improvement is unlikely.
“In 2019, almost half the applications took over 99 days to decide. The figure does not include applications still under consideration so the proportion taking over 99 days to decide is expected to increase.”
While felling licence applications are recorded differently than afforestation licences, Mackinnon acknowledges a similar trend in delays as only 8% of private licences were issued within four months and 23% within six months by August this year.
He treads carefully on the registered foresters (RFs)-DAFM inspectorate relationship.
“It was suggested that the inspectorate were too focused on individual site appraisal and had lost sight of the bigger picture in relation to forestry’s role in meeting the planting targets in the Climate Action Plan and supporting rural development,” he says.
It seems clear that an overly cautious and risk-averse culture has evolved which has resulted in widespread negative perception of customer service
“There is also evidence that the rate of site inspections has fallen and it is likely that this has been as a result of the Inspectorate’s high workload.”
He also says that “it seems clear that an overly cautious and risk-averse culture has evolved which has resulted in widespread negative perception of customer service”.
However, he is critical of some RFs who submit “poor-quality applications [which] are a source of concern as is a failure to understand the implications of the legal processes under which the various schemes operate, which have been reinforced by recent court judgements”.
He also alludes to recent approval delays due to “the statutory requirement to screen for potentially significant effects on Natura Sites”.
He states: “While all applications must be screened under the Habitats Directive, relatively few numbers have resulted in requests for Natura Impact Statements. However, these requests have risen from less than 15 in 2016 to over 50 in 2019.”
He identifies “the numbers and skills (essentially around meeting the requirements of the Habitats Directive) required in the Department which has affected morale and confidence and the lack of flexibility arising from procedures being set out in legislation (including a third party right of appeal) which are likely to be time consuming to alter”.
The review examines progress of the Forestry Programme Implementation Group (FPIG) chaired by Minister Doyle, as well as the monthly discussions on key performance indicators (KPI).
The KPI meetings discuss “monthly figures on applications submitted, approved and areas planted but it is misleading to describe these figures as KPIs”, he says.
He maintains that these meetings do little to improve performance or achieve targets.
Actions
In all, Mackinnon has suggested 22 actions that would move the sector forward, including:
Strategy – prepare a forestry strategy for Ireland. Profile– raise the political profile and commitment to woodland creation. Elevate the status for the minister responsible for forestry, include forestry in the Department’s name and have the Taoiseach’s Department represented on a forestry programme implementation group. Customer charter – Department should move quickly to produce a customer service charter, which sets out the service relevant stakeholders should expect and receive. Guidance – develop guidance on the Habitats Directive as it affects licensing applications. Monitoring – ensure the Climate Action Delivery Board acts where planting rates continue to falter. Consultation with public bodies (PBs) – revise memoranda of understanding with National Monument Service and National Parks and Wildlife Service. Timescales for PB consultation should be aligned. For example, Mackinnon is not clear “why NPWS should be given twice as long to respond as other bodies”. Applications – focus action on reducing current backlog of applications. Dialogue – introduce pre-application discussions with issues/action log. DAFM staffing – recruit additional inspectors and environmental specialists. Land availability – conduct pilot studies on land availability, including the potential for woodland creation on areas of unenclosed land. Legislation – in the longer-term review the legislation on forestry and consider the introduction of a single consent covering planting, road construction, management and felling.Ensuring Mackinnon’s recommendations are implemented will be a major challenge. Mackinnon’s suggestions to increase the status of forestry minister, the profile of the Department (including incorporating ‘forestry’ in the title) and putting a chief forester in place are welcome.
However, the current Department structure, while serving forestry well from a regulatory and financial management perspective, differs in approach and culture from the highly adaptable State agency that is required. In fact, forestry is the only natural resource sector that has no independent State promotional and development body.
While a proposal for such an organisation was outside the terms of reference of the review, many reports have expressed a need for such an agency.
Forestry stakeholders see the merit in an independent forestry development agency that would support the Department and the sector in achieving Ireland’s demanding afforestation, wood mobilisation and climate change targets.
Jim McKinnon’s review of Scottish afforestation in 2016 prompts him to draw comparisons between both countries. Scotland’s sluggish planting programme has increased to over 11,000ha which begs the question “Why can’t we be more like the Scottish?” While there are similarities between both countries Mackinnon outlines some of the differences.
These include “the high political priority given to forestry since 2016 by the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy in the Scottish Government with farming and forestry seen as complementary sectors of the rural economy”.
He acknowledges the commitment of Minister Doyle but he also points to “greater evidence of partnership working with [the Scottish] Government” where the industry “is focused on delivering the benefits of forestry while engagement with environmental organisations seems more pragmatic and focused on sustainable outcomes”.
He suggests that the “Scottish Government’s Forestry Strategy 2020-2030 is a possible model for the sort of document that is required”.
He also notes the greater opposition to forestry in Ireland and the fragmented nature of Irish forests with small areas averaging 8ha compared with 40ha in Scotland where “schemes of 200ha or more are not uncommon”.
There are also differences in planning afforestation at national and local level. For example, he cites the lack of consultation between foresters and Department inspectors “ prior to submitting license applications”. In addition the conversion rate of license approval to planting in Scotland is much higher than Ireland.
In Scotland the land owner/applicant pays whoever is lodging the application much earlier
Indirectly he addressed the issue of cash flow that Irish registered foresters (RFs) experience and suggests the introduction of fees for submitting applications.
“RFs do not receive their fee until the afforestation licence has been issued, the grant approved and trees planted [which] could take two years or more. In Scotland the land owner/applicant pays whoever is lodging the application much earlier.”
Ireland has disadvantages in expanding the forest resource due to “the 20% limit for planting on unenclosed land” which is not replicated in Scotland.
He says that Irish procedures for afforestation and felling licenses are contained in statute while in Scotland “the processes for woodland creation are non-statutory, except in relation to the transposition of European Environmental Directives”.
The third party right of appeal on applications for afforestation, felling and forest road construction in Ireland does not exist in Scotland.
The equivalent organisations in Scotland are much more engaged and are encouraged to take a proactive role in problem solving
The function of pre-application discussions between RF and inspectorate does not exist in Ireland while “there was little evidence of Public Bodies actively engaging early in the licensing process,” the review claims.
“The equivalent organisations in Scotland are much more engaged and are encouraged to take a proactive role in problem solving. This lack of active engagement is particularly evident in the challenges many Inspectors are having with Appropriate Assessment.”
He is highly complementary of the Department iFORIS system and the supporting GIS which “identifies and locates natural and built heritage resources with a high degree of precision”.
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: