Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Irish Timber Council and the Irish Forestry and Forest Products Association for their attendance. I apologise for having missed the introductory presentations but I heard some of them on the monitor and will read the full submissions later. I agree with much of what the witnesses have said. We should all share the common objective of having a comprehensive, coherent forest policy to develop the enormous potential of forestry. I strongly endorse the call from the Irish Timber Council for clarity with regard to the question of the sale of the harvesting being off the table, fully and finally. We seem to have achieved that but absolute clarity is important. I also agree strongly with the argument for proper engagement with all the stakeholders. It is very unfortunate that the Minister has refused to meet the organisations here today. However, it is not just the Irish Timber Council and the IFFPA that are involved here.
As Deputy Deering has said, our approach is the wrong way around. A point made to me by one of the forestry NGOs was that it is difficult to have a forestry Bill without the review of Coillte. That review commenced but the report was never published. That relates to the point about meeting the Government to discuss Coillte and Bord na Móna. Coillte is the biggest owner of forests in the State by a long mile, and unless we know what is happening with and in Coillte, it is very difficult to develop a comprehensive and coherent policy. All of the discussions and the reviews should have come prior to a Bill being presented to the Dáil for a Second Stage debate, and I made that very point during the debate. Perhaps the fact we are having these discussions now, prior to the Committee Stage debate, is an indication that the Government's attitude to this has changed somewhat. At least we are having these discussions, and I hope all the necessary consultations take place. I also hope we get the information we need about Coillte in terms of what is being proposed vis-à-visBord na Móna. I share the concerns of the witnesses. I agree there are potential problems with the proposed merger of Coillte and Bord na Móna in the context of conflicts of interest. Given the outcry in the past week about lack of information on Irish Water and with the Government now back-tracking, I am glad to say, on the issue of freedom of information, would the witnesses endorse the call for Coillte to be subject to freedom of information requests? It seems to me that it should be. It is extraordinary that the biggest owner of forestry in the State is not subject to freedom of information requests. There are serious questions to be answered about what goes on in Coillte. We need a much greater level of transparency and accountability from that organisation.
I strongly endorse the point made regarding the need for an aggressive afforestation policy. That is what Coillte should be about. The target of 15,000 ha is not being achieved. Even that target is not enough and we need to increase rapidly the amount of forested land for economic, environmental, natural resource and tourism reasons. There is a huge, unrealised potential that must be developed. The Bill is not specific enough in that regard. Would the witnesses agree that there should be specific targets for afforestation in the Bill? I believe we should have such targets in the legislation. At present, it is very vague and ill-defined. A lot seems to be left to the discretion of the Minister. The witnesses are right to point to the very specific commitment to the stakeholders being involved in the committee that will oversee all this. We need all the stakeholders to be involved and that should be defined more specifically in the Bill, as should afforestation targets.
While I agree with much of what the witnesses have said, I am concerned at their setting of sustainability against the imperative to develop a competitive and economically viable forestry sector. I believe that is not a very good way to go because we should be trying to achieve both. The policy of sustainability would be best underpinned by precisely what the witnesses are calling for, namely, aggressive afforestation. That is sustainable forestry. It is a mistake for the organisations present to get themselves into a battle with the environmentalists in trying to pursue their objectives. We should have a united front on these issues in exactly the same way as we had a united front in the battle to stop the harvesting rights of Coillte being sold. The economic potential of forestry is predicated on forestry being sustainable.

There are serious detailed issues on what is an excessive burden on small private forest owners. The suggestion of distinct types of licences, for example, a licence for clear-felling and a different licence for thinning, is a very interesting idea. The clearing of a forest is very problematic and gives rise to replanting issues. A small farmer who is thinning out the forest is in a different category as this has a lesser impact on the environment. May I put it to the witnesses that they are being slightly confrontational with those who would be concerned about sustainability and proper regulation of the sector from an environmental point of view when what we should be looking for is a common viewpoint?

I have scanned through what has been said. Will the witnesses comment on the question of species mix and developing a greater proportion of native forest species as distinct from Sitka spruce and other evergreens? Do the witnesses think that species should be specified to increase significantly the percentage of native forest cover as part of the afforestation policy for which they are calling?