Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the advancement of the Bill, which most speakers did. It is time the legislation was updated and modernised. We are very conscious that the work started under the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes's predecessor, the late Shane McEntee, who, along with his family, we all think about at this time. Recently, a decision was made not to proceed with the sale of Coillte's harvesting rights. That is an issue on which I campaigned. The sale would have done irreparable damage to a key public resource not only for this generation, but for future generations. Any income gained from that sale could never have been hoped to match the amount which would have been lost, so that certainty about the future is very welcome.

Now that it has been established that Coillte forests and harvesting rights will remain exclusively in State hands, we must look at the poor record in regard to how we have approached afforestation in this country. Despite the fact the island was completely covered by forests, we have had a poor record of afforestation for centuries. Current afforestation policy calls for 17% forestry coverage by 2035 and yearly afforestation rates of 20,000 ha per annum by 2048. Current afforestation coverage is 11% which does not compare favourably with the European average which is 35%. When one considers the population density of Ireland, one might wonder why it is so low but, of course, there are historical reasons for that. During the Industrial Revolution in Britain, a lot of timber was required. The Irish population has a very unique dispersal pattern, which continues today. Very often farmers with very small holdings wanted a quick return on crops because some of the farms were very marginal. There would also have been an element of short-term thinking in terms of returns.

I am happy to see there are a number of improvements in the Bill in regard to the responsible management of our forests within the ecosystem, which is welcome. However, the Bill only mildly touches on the area of carbon sequestration. I would like to see that further developed, although I know there are sectoral plans and that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine will have a really important role to play in those plans because that is where our targets for climate change will be set and this area will be vitally important in that regard. The Oireachtas Joint on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht just completed a report, which involved a number of hearings over the summer on the proposed carbon legislation. It was a very useful forerunner to the Bill because much expertise was gained by committee members who will be involved in the legislation. It is clear there are substantial issues with which we must deal. There are three areas in particular, namely, transport, agriculture and the built environment.

We are not allowed to use carbon sinks towards the 2020 targets but that is almost certain to change by 2015, so we must think ahead. It is estimated that Coillte forests store 10.5 million tonnes of CO2 and that the current stock of trees can store up to 1.1 million extra tonnes per year. That represents a clear opportunity to use our natural resource wisely. When one considers that we might end up paying fines in hard cash if we do not meet our obligations, this whole sector is really important.

We need to encourage the use of our forests and wood industry by-products as a source of renewable energy. Wood biomass is under-utilised. We must look at examples like Scandinavia, which has been referred to several times. We have the wood craft industry and we cannot ignore the role Coillte plays as an employer in rural areas. These are areas where alternative sources of employment might be found now and in the future. The forestry sector is one of the few indigenous industries and Coillte accounts for more than 80% of the timber sold on the market. It supplies a whole range of wood processing facilities and it is a significant employer outside the larger urban centres. This helps to address employment imbalances from region to region where there are no natural assets and where this would be a natural asset in rural areas. Saw mills and panel board mills employ approximately 1,800 people. If we consider Coillte's liabilities, we must really focus on making the sector generate a value for the State, whether through increased employment, income through tourism, forest amenities or through carbon off-setting, which will be quite important.

Another area where we need some direct ministerial intervention is the use of forests as a public amenity. This kind of tourism is well developed in other countries, in particular in the United States. The public amenity value of Coillte forests cannot be over-stated. Some 54% of Coillte forests are on public land - in fact, it has grown quite a bit in recent years. Projects like the Dublin Mountains partnership and Donadea forest park in my constituency demonstrate the popularity of Coillte lands and another area of diversification that could be encouraged. While Coillte operates an open forestry policy, there is not a similar policy in private forests. Substantial grants are often paid to landowners and if grant assistance is provided, there could be a new condition to provide reasonable access to those lands. That might be something about which the Minister might think.

In terms of the visual landscape, it is very noticeable that much of County Wicklow has been planted with Sitka spruce, which has matured. The landscape can often resemble a bit of a war zone when it is stripped away at the one time. Wicklow is the garden of Ireland and that is not the best way to present such a vital tourism resource. Broad leaves need to be planted in locations and these forests should be regulated primarily as amenity forests, in particular, where there is a high level of tourism, and they should be managed accordingly. I would go as far as to say that the National Parks and Wildlife Service should have a remit in that respect.

I wish to deal with sub-thresholds and the rules and regulations in regard to planting. There is a really serious problem here. For example, an EIA is required if it is more than 50 ha. If it is under 50 ha, essentially, an EIA is not required but the local authority might ask for an EIS. In all the years I have been looking at planning applications, I have never seen an EIS argue against a proposed development. They are supposed to be independent but I have never seen anything independent about them in that they find a way to argue for the development. What happens is one gets 49 ha, 49 ha beside that and another 49 ha beside that. What one has is a large area developed without the EIA.

We need to find a way of dealing with that. I would like to think we could do so in this legislation. It is a real frustration for local authorities that are trying to have a positive impact, visually and otherwise, on the landscape.

See this speech in context