Mr. John O'Connell:

I will give a brief history of the ash dieback problem. Ash dieback, now known as Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, was discovered in 1992 in eastern Europe and since then has spread throughout Europe. It is a windborne fungal disease, much like potato blight. There is currently no means of treating this disease. The spores can travel 20 km to 30 km in the air and infect ash trees through their leaves, causing the leaves to wilt and ultimately causing the tree to die. It was first reported in Ireland in 2012, has spread throughout the country and is going to wipe out 95% of our native ash. As an island nation more than 30 km from our nearest neighbour, we should have been in a position to prevent the invasion of the disease with proper phytosecurity. Plants were imported from Europe where the disease was prevalent. This importation defies logic as ash is a native tree and should have been propagated in this State. There are 20,000 ha of privately planted ash in the country, all of which will ultimately be infected. Ash trees were planted by farmers because ash is a native broadleaf which is fast growing and has high commercial potential, with hurley making being the primary use as well as other uses such as in furniture, kitchens and boat building. It also has a high biodiversity value.

The current reconstitution and underplanting scheme, RUS, announced on 10 June 2020 has been completely rejected by farmers and foresters and all their representative bodies as it does not adequately address the enormous losses sustained and the extremely restrictive conditions imposed. A clearance grant of €1,000 goes nowhere near the cost of clearing an infected plantation, which can be in excess of €3,000 or €4,000 per acre depending on the size and age of the plantation.

The afforestation pioneers who planted over 25 years ago are relied upon within the sector for advice and experience but are precluded from participation in the RUS. This is leading to a prevailing sense of disillusionment. The value of these plantations has been reduced to the value of firewood. At this point, a 25-year-old plantation should be 15 years away from significant commercial value, not to mention that the environmental benefits from decades of work are being undone. A major incentive in planting ash trees was to provide financial security in retirement, but this potential opportunity has been destroyed. These people have no responsibility for, nor any control over, these losses and are substantially stressed. Other farming sectors have suffered disastrous losses from TB or foot and mouth disease and such losses were addressed immediately. Due to the halting of the initial ash dieback scheme and delay in introducing the RUS on 10 June 2020, the farmer-forester has been left in limbo for at least six years while the disease has been allowed to run riot. We now need to move forward in a positive direction. The inaction to date is having a detrimental effect on farmers considering engaging in forestry. Farmer-foresters are custodians for future generations and should be treated as having the potential to mitigate a lot of the climate problems. That potential needs to be recognised.

The solution to this ash dieback problem should be addressed as follows: First, consultation must involve engagement.

To date there has been a lack of engagement between the forest service and farmers and foresters. It should be borne in mind that the farmer or forester is the primary stakeholder. Any solution must encompass all infected ash plantations. The conditions of the RUS need to be simplified so that the farmer or forester can progress with the process. The programme must be easily understood. It is suggested that, under the scheme, one may have to submit a Natura impact statement, which involves additional cost.

The costs incurred in the removal of stumps and roots should be covered, especially in older plantations where costs are enormous due to the size of stumps and roots. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees should also be covered. This needs to be followed by premiums of at least 15 years and an additional element to cover losses to date, not to mention the stress and trauma of this catastrophe. There should be an option to return land to pasture for those farmers who need it. This may not apply in all cases.

I will now go into the reasons our submission must be taken seriously. Farmers and foresters are climate custodians. There is no more efficient way of mitigating CO2 than planting trees. A myriad of other health, social and ecological benefits are involved. Forests produce oxygen, without which mankind will not survive.

If we want a forest industry in this country, we must address the ash dieback problem which is reducing confidence to zero. We must be taken seriously. Finally, we cordially extend an invitation to each member of the committee to visit infected sites. If any members contact us, we will be happy to facilitate this.