Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the representatives. I wish to make a couple of observations. In regard to the proposed merger, the representatives and Coillte may have common ground on that issue. Coillte will probably resist the proposed merger with Bord na Móna depending on how it is proposed they be knit together. I agree with what Deputy Pat Deering said earlier that the hearings held last year on the proposed sale did have some bearing on the final decision. It gave the various stakeholders an opportunity to make a public presentation in this forum. That is the purpose of meetings such as today's meeting. There was general agreement that the harvesting rights should not be sold and that Coillte should not be sold. There was almost unanimous agreement that it needed to be changed.

Before the witnesses appeared we went through our work programme. The purpose of today's meeting was primarily to deal with the Forestry Bill. That is fine and it is all interlinked, but we agreed to draft a work programme which includes a total land use policy, including the future direction of the forest sector. In particular, the Irish Timber Council's presentation starts that ball rolling. The general discussion that followed made it clear that we have a resource which is the land of Ireland, be it Bord na Móna land, privately owned farm land, privately owned forestry land, estate owned forestry land, etc. It has multifunctional potential, be it food, energy, raw material for the timber industry, recreation and so on. I recall when REFIT 2 or REFIT 3 - whichever is on renewables - was being introduced, Coillte had a major issue with the PSO and having to put so much product into what it would see as an inefficient power generation facility when it would say that it would be more efficient to send it to one of its own processing plants. Furthermore, there are companies which the witnesses will be aware of which can assess electronically or digitally the potential of a wood and say that 95% of a particular tree should go for saw log, or 100% or 50% of another tree should go for box wood. It can assess the most efficient use of every tree in every wood. That technology is in place. We need the income. It is an Irish company with Irish technology that is going into South America, Russia and Australia and we need to harness that technology. I believe a Cork gentleman is at the back of it. It is fabulous technology and has the potential to put to use every tree we harvest in its most efficient way.

My vision for total land use is that we would account for all the public good, including carbon sequestration. Dr. Peter Brennan, EPS Consulting Limited, will be aware of work we did in the last Dáil on the whole issue of using plantations for offsets. That is something we will look at in the context of the bigger picture of Food Harvest 2020 targets and greenhouse gas obligations. Unless we can utilise the land to mitigate the output from agriculture, an irreconcilable collision will take place. While we did not think it would happen, today's meeting has started our work, before we had agreed to start, on land use policy into the future. We would hope we can be part of the framing of a general policy in that regard. Yesterday, we published a major report on promoting sustainable coastal and island communities, but this issue could involve much more effort. Witnesses will get the flavour of what we are trying to do which is the bigger picture and it allows the industry to flourish.

On the issue as to whether the boardmills should be sold off, there will be differences of opinion in the industry. The findings of the forestry review group on this issue will be interesting. I believe there should be a forestry development authority.

It has been done before and does not have to cost a fortune. It would be advantageous, but should feed into an overall policy. I believe we are at the start of something here.

The committee has genuine concerns in regard to the Forestry Bill. It would have been better if the new policy of heads of Bill being presented to a committee before being developed had occurred and they had been brought to the committee first. However, we will try to deal with some of the matters that have arisen. Other submissions have yet to be made and we will have another hearing on 28 January with three other groups. We are seeking to defer Committee Stage for three or four weeks, until the end of February or early March, which will give us time to give the Bill due consideration and prepare some proposals from the committee to try to ensure it achieves what it sets out to do, namely, to streamline and encourage more afforestation.

I thank all the witnesses for attending and thank the members of the committee for engaging on this matter. Deputy Boyd Barrett is not a member of the committee, but obviously has an interest in this area. This subject is huge and feeds into a total land use policy. It is something that has significant potential. While we have advantages in this regard, we face challenges. The Irish Timber Council made the point in its presentation that this industry was 80% domestic and 20% export, but was able to flip that around during a recession so that where we might have expected a glut of supply material in the market, there is now a shortage. This demonstrates the adaptability of the industry. While the industry is driven by both sectors, the relationship and remit of Coillte will be fundamental to its future. The State will remain a player in the forestry sector, but how it will best work with the industry will be key to defining the success or failure of the industry in the future.

I hope the groups found their visit here useful. It was useful to this committee. We have further hearings on the Bill on 28 January and we will also do further work on it. If any of the witnesses wish to have any further input, we will welcome any submission they wish to make.