Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

A number of interesting questions have been asked. They have given rise to more questions that I would like to ask. However, I will try to focus on a few clear points. While I do not wish to contradict Mr. Hendrick directly, it is important to clarify that when the UN talks about material substitution, sequestration and bioenergy, it is not talking about the same tree. The need for large numbers of trees requires a huge scale of afforestation - not necessarily commercial afforestation, but afforestation which serves a role in terms of sequestration. We need to be really clear that there is not an endorsement that all forestry must be commercially exploited as substitution or indeed bioenergy. That is certainly not the position as I understand it. The most recent IPCC land use report, which came out earlier this year and has been debated at this committee, seems to contradict any such suggestion. Other witnesses may wish to comment on this in their responses. While the report does not use such language, I suggest that a "keep it in the ground" perspective is a core element of its approach to land use.

The other key function, in addition to those functions, is biodiversity. We are facing the twin crisis of an ecological crisis with a huge level of species collapse and an absolutely linked climate crisis. I sometimes worry that the focus on carbon maths causes us to forget about the accelerants of climate change, one of which will be biodiversity loss.

I will focus on that and build on some of the questions Deputy Bríd Smith asked.

Mr. Purser mentioned that 70% of the carbon capture is in the soils. We know that, for example, in the first five years of a tree being planted there can be a carbon loss during that period because of the turning up of soil and so forth. That is one of the reasons retention of trees for longer and moving away from clear felling is so important. Mr. Purser indicated that he has concerns about clear felling but I ask the Forest Industries Ireland and Coillte witnesses to be clear on where they stand on continuous cover and whether that is a future policy they will move towards, as they have moved on broadleaf, and the extent to which that policy will become central in the future.

On the issue of broadleaf, we are still looking at a figure of 27% in terms of the species mix in forests planted in 2018. However, I hear from people who have engaged around forestry and they still find that many foresters talk to them about the practice of broadleaf fringing, that is, broadleaf around the edge of a core, which might be a monocultural crop like Sitka spruce. That is a major concern. What measures have been taken to address that practice? If we are talking to the witnesses in two years time, will Sitka spruce still be a majority in terms of species mix? What will be the percentage of Sitka spruce in our future forestry plans and what measures will the witnesses introduce to achieve that?

Broadleaf fringing is also an issue in terms of wildlife and biodiversity corridors, and the national pollinator plan. We have not heard much mention of the national pollinator plan. How are the witnesses' forestry strategies ensuring effective enhancement of the national pollinator plan?

That brings me to the CAP. With respect, policy is our business. We are legislators. Policy is not an issue that is out of discussion. We are not asking these questions for the good of our health. I ask about future policy and the advice, suggestions or recommendations this committee might give towards future policy, which is the reason we are here. We need more clarity on current policy from the Department. The application for CAP funding may be a period of time away but as Mr. Hayes acknowledged, the negotiations are happening now. What is the Irish position on the negotiations in terms of issues such as broadleaf percentages in forestry, the pollinator plans and co-benefits? That is something that relates to the CAP because rather than talking about an individual farmer, for example, will there be a layer of co-benefits where landowners co-operate with each other around the creation of, say, a pollinator pathway? Is that something we would be looking to be additionally recognised for and that would be reflected in payments? Is that an issue on which we are advocating?

Has Ireland taken a position on the issue of clear felling versus continuous cover? Are we in that discussion? The reason we are here is to talk about our plans and if a national climate plan is being produced in the coming weeks, it is relevant that we would hear where we are in the negotiations.

There are many issues I want to raise but I will conclude shortly to ensure I have a chance to come back in.