Mr. Pacelli Breathnach:

The Society of Irish Foresters would like to thank the members for their invitation to make a submission on the Forestry Bill 2013 and for meeting with us today.

By way of background, the Society of Irish Foresters was founded in 1942 to advance and spread the knowledge of forestry in all its aspects. The society represents the interests of more than 700 members, predominantly professional foresters but including, through its associate and student membership, a wide cross-section of people involved in or with an interest in the forest and timber industry. Members of the society work across all areas of the forest industry – State sector, semi-State sector, private forestry companies, forestry consultants, forestry contracting, nurseries, the timber processing sector and investment companies.

The Society of Irish Foresters places great emphasis on promoting professional standards in forestry among its members and the regulation of the forestry profession. To this end, members of the Society of Irish Foresters are bound by its code of ethics and professional conduct. The society also influences forestry education in Ireland with a view to maintaining the highest professional standards. A system of continuous professional development is maintained for its professional members.

The society was very pleased with the response of the committee to its submission on Coillte's harvesting rights.

The Forestry Bill should support the implementation of the strategic actions arising from the Irish forest policy review process, which is currently at draft phase for public consultation. In that context, the Bill may be somewhat premature as it is unknown what changes, if any, will be made to the draft. Nevertheless, one has to assume that an expansion of the forest resource area will continue.

The society notes a number of omissions from the Bill which it believes should be included, the first of which is research. One should assume that good forestry practice and the protection of the environment is grounded on contemporary research in forestry and related matters. Furthermore, the industry is facing challenges such as diseases like chalara and phytophthora, impact from climate change, etc.

This is a notable omission from section 5 of the Bill. Our written submission includes wording for sections 5 and 28 and we urge the committee to include our research in the relevant sections. The society has published a position paper on research, a copy of which we will provide for the committee.

The Bill does not appear to refer to any power of the Minister to propose or review policies. This should be included in Part 2, section 5, which sets out the general functions of the Minister. The Bill should also require the Minister to prepare and publish annual reports on the Department’s activities. Our written submission sets out some of the areas an annual report should cover such as data on afforestation and other schemes, supports to the industry and progress on meeting the strategic objective of reaching a critical mass of sustainable timber supply.

The 1996 strategic plan for the development of the forestry sector envisioned that 17% of the land area would be afforested by 2030. However, between 1996 and 2012, only 53% of the planting target had been achieved, with a cumulative shortfall of 143,952 ha. The draft review states the afforestation target will be 10,000 ha per annum up to 2015 and 15,000 ha per annum thereafter up to 2046 when the level of forest cover would be 18%. This is 16 years later than planned in 1996. Given the failure to achieve planting targets up to the present, the society recommends that the Bill state: "The Minister shall set and review annual planting targets until such time as the critical mass of sustainable roundwood timber supply is achieved". This could be included in section 5. To achieve the new planting targets, it is essential that barriers to afforestation be removed. The Bill should be an enabler to achieving the planting targets. However, it is the view of the society that key elements of it are, in fact, inhibitors to the achievement of the planting targets. Confidence is a key element in encouraging people to make a long-term investment in planting.

Full details have been set out in our written submission on the following points which I will summarise. The proposed powers of the Minister to revoke or amend licences or approvals as proposed under section 7 and to reject, revoke or add conditions to management plans at any time will become a major inhibitor. Essentially, this hands over decision making on property to the Minister without taking into account the management objectives of the owner. An investment could be rendered useless or severely restricted without compensation. The proposal for fees appears to run contrary to the explanatory memorandum's claim that the Bill will not result in significant cost to the Exchequer or business. Potential forest owners fear that fees will only move in one direction - upwards.

The society recommends linking management plans with felling licences. A management plan for a forest is best practice and the society would support the production of such plans. Given the very low area average in the private sector, a minimum size requirement or a simplified plan should apply. The key is that forest management plans would be prepared. The management plans should also be prepared to meet the objectives and principles of sustainable forest management. The acceptance of a management plan should trigger a felling licence for the duration of the crop up to clear felling. Notification of the commencement of operations to the Minister should be sufficient to allow him to exercise his regulatory function. A separate felling licence should be required for clear felling. This would greatly reduce the administrative burden on the Minister. The power of the Minister to register a burden of a licence or replanting order on a property’s folio and later to remove such a burden when he is satisfied that the conditions of the order or licence have been met is excessive, potentially expensive and unnecessary. Conveyancing solicitors should pick up on these obligations during their normal work.

While the society has an open mind on the replanting requirement and would be wary of proposals that would result in deforestation, the power of the Minister to specify in detail the replanting requirements is, in its own right, excessive, as it does not take account of the owners' objectives and will increase the administrative burden. The Minister may wish to retain an input in some particularly sensitive areas. If so, this exceptional circumstance should be reflected in the Bill and follow consultation with the forest owner.

Several of the timescales set out in the Bill are unrealistic. For example, it may not be possible to supply the information sought in section 13 within 28 days. A period of 12 weeks would be more realistic. In the Bill deadlines apply to industry players only and none applies to the Minister. Timeframes should also be set for the Minister in the performance of his duties and, in default, compensation or other remedies should be stated because a failure to act promptly may cause a loss to the forest owner.

Section 32 has the potential to cause further uncertainty. This relates to the setting aside of the Statute of Limitations and allowing proceedings for recovery to be instituted within 20 years. Work can be done in good faith; similarly, grant claims, approvals after inspections and payments can made in good faith. However, up to 20 years later proceedings can be instituted to recoup the money paid because, for example, of some update in technology. Work completed to the required standard and measurements consistent with the available technology should be signed off on as meeting the standard without a further claw-back in the event that there are technological improvements.

The Bill gives authorised officers inordinate powers of entry to land and premises, other than a dwelling house. The approach is what one would expect in a criminal investigation. The overall approach to penalties is quite draconian, with class A penalties throughout.

The society welcomes the appointment of committees. Members have been pleased to have worked on various committees during the years and given service from a sense of commitment rather than remuneration. However, the society is dismayed by the tone of section 9 on the prohibition on unauthorised disclosure of confidential information.

There are a number of other topics which are outside the scope of the Bill but which are no less important and might be considered in this context. On land availability and land use policy, numerous constraints are placed on the expansion of the forest estate because of the classification of and competing demands on land against the background of a scarce and finite resource. Food Harvest 2020 may put further pressure on land that might otherwise be used for forestry, together with alternative schemes such as the REPS. Income from forestry was previously tax exempt. However, the change to the tax laws whereby forest income is taxed as income in the year in which it is realised without any reference to the growing period required to produce that income has potential to derail the planting programme. Confidence in the sector is also impacted on by changes in grant and premium rates. Given the long-term nature of forestry, confidence in the long-term commitment of funding is equally important.