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

That works out about right. Mr. McCarthy said there was half a million acres. If I remember correctly, he said half of that would require substantial investment to bring it on, and the rest was not viable in any sense. I would like to hear more about that. What somebody might consider commercially viable from a narrow commercial point of view is not necessarily unviable from an environmental, carbon lock-up and biodiversity point of view. I am not satisfied at all that land written off as not viable for forestry is actually not viable, if one takes a more holistic view of what forestry is and what it can contribute to dealing with climate change, mitigating flooding, and reversing the decline in biodiversity that is happening. It is not just that we are not enhancing biodiversity; biodiversity is declining.

That brings me on to the diversity of species. How many of the 18 million trees that Coillte is planting are deciduous? What is Coillte doing to shift the balance towards a diversity of species, particularly in the broadleaf area? Are we moving in the right direction? How fast are we moving in the right direction? How much of what Coillte is contributing to afforestation is expanding biodiversity and broadleaf species?

Examining the mid-term review, I notice that broadleaf planting nationally is down from 24% in 2014 to 19% currently. To what extent is Coillte contributing to the worsening of the situation where broadleaf planting is concerned? The recent Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, report also refers to deforestation. It points to deforestation resulting from a number of factors. One of the significant factors it refers to is wind farms, in which Coillte plays a part. I have to question what I see as a tension between Coillte's core mandate for afforestation, helping to deal with climate change, biodiversity and being the guardian of the forest estate on one hand, and the imperative to be commercially viable and get involved in non-core projects such as wind farms on the other and whether the two are actually conflicting with one another - in other words, whether the commercial imperative is adversely impacting upon Coillte's core mandate, which is to be the guardian of the forest estate. The EPA report does not say how much of this problem is Coillte's responsibility, but Coillte is one of the bodies promoting the use of lands owned by the forest estate to develop these wind farms, which may be contributing to deforestation.

Along with others, of whom I am sure the witnesses are aware, I have talked about how the planting of the uplands, particularly with broad-leaf species, might actually contribute very significantly to mitigating flooding downstream. As the witnesses know, there are projects under way in Wales, where studies suggest this is very significantly reducing flooding. Should we not use some of these uplands for that? In particular, should Coillte, whose core mandate is forestry, be using the uplands for that, rather than for building giant wind farms which may actually be contributing to deforestation? I would like the witnesses to comment on that.

Lastly, I wish to ask about poles for telecommunications. Is it true that we are importing poles for electricity and telephone cables from outside the country, and that our forest industry cannot even meet that need? I would like the witnesses to comment on that. I have been told that is true. Some 40,000 poles are being imported. Maybe the witnesses could comment on that, but it seems quite extraordinary.