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

I tabled an amendment to this section to deal with an important issue. I understand it was ruled out of order because of a potential charge on the Exchequer. Our pretty spectacular failure to meet our afforestation targets is well known. We are delivering a small fraction of our afforestation targets. It is clear from the current trajectory that there is no real likelihood of a significant improvement in that regard. I believe it should be set out in the Bill that we will have targets and that we will meet those targets. It is clear from the discussion on the various amendments to section 5 that the Minister of State is placing a big emphasis on his hope that any expansion of the forestry sector will come from the owners of small or slightly bigger amounts of land. I do not think it will happen on that basis. The Minister of State has made it clear that this is what he is trying to do. I just do not think it is enough. The State, which is the biggest owner of forests, has singularly failed to advance the afforestation project. While it might succeed at some level, I do not think it will cut it in an overall sense to rely solely on incentivising or facilitating private owners of land. The State has to be obliged to deliver on afforestation.

I have made it clear when speaking on all the amendments to this section that many of those who are in favour of afforestation think there should be a binding requirement for it to happen within a short timeframe, for reasons relating to climate change, etc. They have suggested that if we do not act in such a manner, it could have disastrous environmental consequences. They also argue that when we are setting out to meet those targets, we must shift towards greater use of native species for all sorts of reasons. I would like to make it clear, in the context of the disease that has affected Gougane Barra, that native species are less susceptible to disease than foreign species. If we do not shift from our current mode, it is a potential accident waiting to happen. I have mentioned the two aspects the Bill has to address to a greater extent than it does at present. First, it should focus on meeting our afforestation targets. Second, an emphasis on moving towards native broadleaf species is necessary for a myriad of reasons, some of which are linked to the question of sustainable forestry.

This section should set out those priorities but fails to do so adequately.