Maire Devine (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will fire off four questions. The first is for Dr. Hendrick. I refer to a study by Dr. Kim Naudts at the University of Amsterdam.

She stated:

In Europe, two and a half centuries of land-use change increased the forest area by 10% and has put over 85% of the forests under management, but it has failed to result in net CO₂removal from the atmosphere, because wood extraction released carbon otherwise stored in the biomass, litter, dead wood, and soil carbon pools. In addition, converting deciduous forests into coniferous forests resulted in changes in albedo, canopy roughness, and evapotranspiration from the land surface, which contributed to

warming rather than mitigating it. Hence, any climate framework that includes land management as a pathway for climate mitigation should not only account for land-cover changes but also should equally address changes in forest management, because not all forest management contributes to climate change mitigation.

Could the witnesses comment on her findings given the Irish context and their opinion of the future of our forest management?

My second question is for Professor Ní Dhubháin. The comprehensive study showed that the percentage of forest cover in Leitrim is way above the national average. She also noted that spruce is the dominant species at 61% compared with 51% nationally. Almost all of those surveyed - 96% - said that they would not under any circumstances consider selling all or part of their holdings for forestry purposes? They were quite opposed to it and indicated that they did not favour any further afforestation of the county yet Professor Ní Dhubháin states that the resistance to afforestation is often proportional to the length of time a community has been associated with forestry. Given that Leitrim has seen almost a century of afforestation policy and has very high coverage, does she agree that the resistance to further expansion in this instance is not based on time to afforestation?

I have two questions for the Department. I come from Dublin city so I am an urbanite. Twenty years ago through Dublin City Council, the Tree Council of Ireland gave a lot of residents, who took it up, a free tree. I see that rowan tree growing in my back garden. It is a private place. Twenty years ago, we did not have an appreciation of the environmental good that trees do but we do now. Is involving, educating and encouraging urbanites, who cannot be forgotten when we talk about afforestation, part of the plan? Does the Department plan to plant 440 million trees by 2040?

My last question is for Ms Hurley, Mr. Murphy and perhaps the Department. It was said that timber will provide sustainable building materials to replace carbon-heavy steel and concrete. Walking around Dublin 15 years ago, the facades were wooden. They became ugly and were banned by Dublin City Council. Is there a need for local authorities to stipulate that a percentage of the interior infrastructure - not the wooden panels but the holding and bricks - needs to be put in for when submitting a planning application to replace the steel? When we first started talking about timber frame houses at about the same time, there was stuff about insurance. Insurance would be so high as to be unaffordable. Would this still be the case if we were to use wood as a replacement for carbon-heavy steel and concrete?