Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

There are two points. One is that, as a condition of the state aid approval for the forestry programme, we are required to do a cost-benefit analysis at the outset, before the start of the programme, so we did a cost-benefit analysis before the start of the programme. Midway through the programme, we were required to do a mid-term review. It is true to say that the primary focus of the mid-term review was on the broadleaf biodiversity problem. We changed our programme substantially to deliver a higher rate of broadleaf cover and, in the year since we have done that, there seems to be a fairly significant response from growers because the rate has gone from 21% to 27% in one year of planting.

In conjunction with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, there is an expenditure review of the programme. Before we start the next programme, which should be in 2020 with a view to getting it done from 2021, we will have a cost-benefit analysis. At that stage, we will be in a better position to evaluate the carbon impact of forestry because, of course, if the shadow price of carbon increases, then the value of the stock of forestry and the value of afforestation will also increase in the context of our climate change obligations.