Mr. Gerry Egan:

Yes. The legislation that governs the harvesting and replanting of these areas dates from 1946. In the post-war era the object of the exercise was to stop the trees from being felled rather than enabling it to be done on a sustainable and commercial basis. The general proposition in legislation, with some exceptions, is that if any area is felled it must be replanted. As members will know, there is a new Forestry Bill on Second Stage, and this is an opportunity to introduce a more flexible regime in terms of some of these areas. Mr. Britchfield referred to the Nephin wilderness area in Mayo, where there are 40,000 hectares which should never have been planted in the first place. Rather than trying to manage such areas for commercial timber production we are looking to see if there is a tourism, recreation and nature conservation benefit to be had from that.

We have also had great success with five LIFE projects, under which we have received EU funding for the conversion of woodlands in a similar category which are reverting to peatland over time. We are trying, within the confines of existing legislation, to be creative in how we address these matters. We would like to see a situation whereby the management prescription, what one is required to do after the area has been felled, is proportionate to the likely value of the successor crop. If one has very productive land that has grown very productive trees or is capable of growing broadleaf trees, the landowner should be obliged to restock that at the full level and maximise his or her productivity. If one has very poor areas that should never have been planted, there must be an incentive for the landowner to manage that land appropriately. Requiring the landowner to replant it uneconomically makes no sense. We see the Forestry Bill as an opportunity to introduce a more flexible regime.