Forestry professionals’ knowledge of and attitudes towards the practice of continuous cover forestry (CCF)

Lucie VítkováUniversity College Dublin, School of Agriculture & Food Science, Forestry

Department, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

Irish forests

Photo: Dr Brian Tobin

Why focusing on attitudes?

• CCF represents an unfamiliar and novel approach to forest management

• Implementation of new management is influenced by:– Attitudes– Knowledge – Values

• Attitudes of forestry professionals -> Limited

Methods

• On-line survey– General information on CCF– Statements framed in the context of issues regarding CCF– Demographic questions– Additional comments

• Participants – Coillte Teo. – Teagasc – Forest Service – Association of Irish Forestry Consultants – Other forest management companies in Ireland

Use of CCF

• 32% actively use CCF – forest managers

• 24% do not use CCF – forest managers

• 34% do not use CCF – forestry consultants/advisors

• 10% did not mention

Understanding of CCF – all participants

• 98% familiar with continuous cover forestry

• Silvicultural systems associated with CCF– Shelterwood systems (26%)– Selection systems (22%)– Not mentioned (27%)– natural regeneration, thinning, long-term retention, low

impact silviculture, etc.

CCF users (32% respondents)

• Reasons for CCF use:– Economic benefit– Broadleaved species– Amenity and recreation– Certification

• Extent of CCF use - limited– Area managed under CCF <10%– CCF applied for <10 years

CCF non-users (24% respondents)

• Over 1/3 not planning to use CCF in the future‘... not convinced of CCF, especially with regards to economics...’

‘... CCF is not a conventional system in Ireland ...’

‘... local forests are too small and the tree species are not suitable to CCF...’

• Resistance from forest owners:‘... forest owners desire to generate revenue through clearfell...’

‘... private forest owners want a ‘fast’ return but CCF has a ‘stigma’ of long term...’

Constraints of CCFall respondents

ConstraintRank

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

Forester's knowledge 26 14 16 7 6 5 1 1

Wind/stability 26 12 13 6 8 3 6 7

Market conditions 12 7 13 11 12 7 12 12

Owners perspective 11 7 9 18 13 6 7 8

Soil type 9 22 13 8 8 14 2 2

Mammal densities 8 7 8 16 11 13 12 12

Other 6 2 4 1 1 1 4 4

Regulations and laws 5 1 11 7 6 17 18 19

Can they be overcome? -Education-Training-Research-Increasing awareness

Drivers of CCF - all respondents

DriverRank

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

Certification 27 15 15 8 11 6 0

Economics 21 12 5 8 14 18 5

Scenic and landscape values 14 18 21 12 9 6 1

Public opposition to clearfell 13 19 14 13 12 6 4

Need for increased biodiversity 12 14 13 18 12 14 0

Recreation 4 14 14 16 13 16 4

Other 4 1 0 1 0 0 16

Attitudes to CCF

StatementDisagree

(%)Don’t know

(%)Agree (%)

‘Clearcutting makes more money than CCF in Ireland’ 5 40 54

‘I have the expertise to practice CCF with confidence’41 18 42

‘Policy makers in Ireland should encourage the use of CCF more’

11 14 75

‘Broadleaved forests are better suited to the application of CCF than coniferous forests’ 42 8 50

‘The high risk of windthrow in Ireland drives us to use clearcutting’ 28 3 69

Conclusions• CCF users over-represented

• CCF = new concept in Ireland– It can take time for a new concept to be accepted and practiced

• Training and research– Understanding the concept -> avoid confusion in terminology

– Feasibility studies -> possible markets, transport and processing

• Promoting and awareness raising – Home-grown and high-grade construction timber – Making forest owners aware of CCF => Forest owners determine

management objectives

• ‘... CCF can be extremely difficult but also logical and natural ...’

Funding:

COFORD - Council for Forest Research and Development

Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine under the National Development Plan, Ireland