Mr. Andrew St. Ledger:

I thank the Chair and the committee for the opportunity to speak here today.

Regarding calls for resilience of public lands, recommendation No. 2, I would like to talk about Coillte, which was originally set up as the Irish Forestry Board. It is in charge of the largest public land bank in the country, comprising approximately 7% of the land mass. We believe it is neither managing this land to ensure climate resilience nor is it delivering full public goods. In 2010, the McCarthy report into State assets found that approximately 500,000 acres of the public estate was not commercially viable. Mr. McCarthy also found that the annual return from the forest business was 0.4%, which he called economically unacceptable. The Environmental Pillar would like to see an independent review and sustainability audit of Coillte's forest business and other activities. The 1988 Forestry Act created Coillte with a commercial timber production and primacy of profit mandate. The Act predates the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, where the concept of sustainable development stemmed from and when the world realised that climate change and other issues were threatening our collective future. The 1988 Act is not fit for purpose.

The Environmental Pillar wants to see the transition of this, the largest public land bank, to mixed native woodlands and forests that ensure sustainable management of this natural resource for long-term benefits in climate mitigation and adaptation, in line with international best practice. The Environmental Pillar is looking for a very different type of management to what is going on.

Under recommendation 13, diversification with focus on planting forests and encouraging organic farming, at the outset we need to differentiate and move from the industrial tree farming forest model that was adopted in this country to a close-to-nature system focused on native species, which is proven to have multiple benefits. We have serious concerns regarding the viability and validity of the current State forestry policy, which I reiterate is an industrial tree-farming model, especially in respect of the climate change mitigation claims and other co-benefits made for this forest industry. The State has spent approximately €2.5 billion in the past ten years on a forestry programme. That is not a good use of public money and is not delivering the multiple public goods it should.

The sustainability of the current model is predicated on increased annual harvests of 35 to 50 year old trees, combined with at least 15,000 ha of new planting, to maintain a balance. This is what is known as the "sustained yield". We now see younger trees are being harvested and Ireland has averaged only 6,000 ha in afforestation or new planting in the past ten years. It is predicted that this year only 4,000 ha will be planted in new planting. Meanwhile harvesting of a younger age profile is increasing. That will lead to possible deforestation.

Between 2012 and 2018, there was only a 0.2% increase in tree cover, which is already low. When this poor planting is combined with ongoing higher harvesting rates, we are looking at deforestation. The current forest policy may be making climate change worse. This forestry model also ranks as the second greatest threat to designated habitats and species in Ireland after agriculture. Almost 40% of designated habitats and 20% of species designated under the habitats directive have forestry as a direct pressure or threat. At a species level, over 20% of species designated under this directive have forestry as a threat.

There is an urgent need to change the direction of forest policy in line with the 2013 forest policy review, one of the main recommendations of which was to separate commercial timber production from the environmental and social objectives of what is known as sustainable forest management, that is, to ensure that the forest policy can deliver climate change mitigation and resilience, as well as other multiple environmental and social benefits which also are tied in to climate resilience. The pillar believes this can be achieved by the creation of a forestry task force as a component of the independent body to ensure climate change at the centre of policy making in Ireland, in line with recommendation 1 of the Citizens Assembly.

There is a need for a task force which operates between the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Heritage Council, the environmental sector and other stakeholders to knock heads and pull together a more co-ordinated, more beneficial policy transition. It is in line with the need for an acceptable global forestry model focused on native trees and woodlands, which are the richest land-based habitats for biodiversity and are still the life-support system for many indigenous peoples and for us all. These future forests must be created for longer-term multiple environmental and social objectives, allowing the trees to grow old to absorb more carbon and to bank it long term and develop invaluable complex ecosystem services. The current model is short term. It is 25 to 30 years long. They are cutting the trees down far too early and are not allowing them to develop or to give the multiple benefits that could accrue.

I refer to recommendations 11 and 13, reward farmers for carbon storage and land diversification. It is linked to what Mr. Stanley-Smith stated earlier. The pillar would like to see options and rewards for diverse agroforestry systems, that is, to integrate different smarter-type forestry into farming. I note farming came originally from forests.

The recommendation from the 1896 recess committee set up by Horace Plunkett was the integration of forestry and farming. We have moved well away from that. Native trees on farms can also alleviate flooding - by reducing the flow of water from land to river channels - and reduce soil-quality depletion. It also protects soil fertility which is very important. Riparian and ecological corridor planting would increase our low tree cover, focus on our native species, collect runoff from pollution by nitrates, etc., and be a win-win for farms.