Ireland’s native woodland scheme, which was introduced by the government in 2001, is successfully bringing back biodiversity. But the country still struggles to meet its tree-planting targets. The reason? Policy doesn’t always match the economic realities farmers face.
Ireland should be a forestry success story. The climate is mild, the soil is fertile and trees grow faster here than almost anywhere else in Europe. Yet despite ambitious government targets and generous public subsidies, the country remains one of the least forested in Europe, with tree cover at just 11.6% – far below the EU average of nearly 40%.
Farmers own most (70%) of the land in Ireland. While the state planted trees on land unsuitable for farming (such as peatlands and uplands) over the past century, tree-planting targets now need to be met by private landowners. For years, the puzzle has been: why don’t farmers plant more trees?
Our new research explores two reasons – one hopeful, one challenging.
One of us (Kate Harrington) has examined biodiversity across nearly 50 native woodland sites planted over the past 20 years.
After many years, these planted sites start to resemble semi-natural woodlands. With guidance from foresters and ecologists, plus the care and attention of landowners, planting can be tailored to specific locations and landscape types.
Our findings suggest that tree planting and rewilding can work in tandem when trees are planted in ways that ensure nature can thrive.
Over time, other native tree species, especially those from nearby hedgerows, naturally colonise and move into these planted woodlands. As that happens, paths and field edges turn into meadow strips, hedgerows flower and biodiversity improves alongside the planted trees. This provides more space and food for pollinators to thrive. Diverse refuges are created for wildlife.
Yet planting rates are still so low. One of us (Laqigige Zhu) has been researching why. A mix of surveys and in-depth interviews with Irish farmers reveals a fundamental tension: farmers face risks that the forest scheme subsidies alone do not cover.
Jo Keal/Shutterstock
When a farmer plants trees on their land, they lose the flexibility to use that land for anything else. Under Irish law, once land is planted, it is permanently reclassified as forest. There is no simple way to revert to grazing or tillage.
Farmers also face long delays for felling licences, uncertain timber prices and the threat of pests and diseases. For example, the devastating ash dieback fungal disease has killed or severely damaged most ash trees across Ireland and Europe, wiping out what was once one of the country’s most common native species.
As one farmer told us: “I [would] die for this piece of land. It’s ingrained in me so much. My DNA, our fields have all names and stories.” Another said: “Growing up, it was almost considered a failure if you ended up having to plant your farm.”
This is not irrational stubbornness. It is a rational response to irreversible decisions under uncertainty. In economic terms, farmers are waiting – preserving the option to use their land in other ways until policy becomes more predictable and fairer.
Ireland is not alone. Across Europe, governments are trying to increase tree planting to meet climate and biodiversity targets, but face similar barriers.
In Finland, a programme called Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland pays landowners to protect forests through flexible, voluntary contracts rather than permanent land-use change. This has helped build trust and increase participation.
Kate Harrington, CC BY-NC-ND
In the UK, the Woodland Carbon Code allows landowners to earn income from carbon storage. But its effectiveness depends on stable, long-term pricing and clear rules, which are still developing.
In France, schemes such as the Label Bas-Carbone are helping to build a market for low-carbon forestry by linking projects with voluntary buyers. However, scaling these projects still depends on supportive policy frameworks and confidence in long-term demand.
These examples point to a common pattern: the science and policy goals are clear, but the economic model is still evolving.
The value of a forest
Forests benefit everyone, but farmers carry the risk. The core issue is how forests are valued.
Woodlands store carbon, support wildlife, reduce flooding, improve water quality and benefit our wellbeing. But right now, the responsibility for creating and maintaining these benefits falls largely on farmers. As a result, there is a mismatch: forests provide public goods, but farmers carry private risks.
Our research suggests that solving this problem is not about simply increasing payments. Instead, it requires a shift in how tree planting is supported.
Forests could be recognised as national natural infrastructure, similar to roads or schools. This would mean providing ongoing support to farmers and landowners for as long as they deliver public benefits, not just during the early years.
Moving policies from fixed subsidies to risk-sharing approaches (whereby the government does not just pay farmers upfront) involves sharing some of the long-term risks that come with planting trees. This might include insurance schemes, public guarantees or contracts that give farmers more flexibility. Policies also need to reflect the diversity of farming systems, from large-scale commercial livestock grazing to small regenerative arable farming.
The EU aims to plant 3 billion trees by 2030, but progress has been slow so far. The Irish case shows why.
Ambition and funding are important, but they are not enough. Successful tree planting depends on understanding how farmers make decisions under uncertainty.
Rather than just planting more trees, the key is creating the right conditions for people to plant them.
