Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for having had to step out of the meeting to speak in the Chamber. I thank the witnesses for their presentations, and I agree it is a pity we could not get full input from the other IFA representatives regarding the problems that exist. The engagement today in both sessions has been useful and important.

Forestry strategy has been a failure in this State. In fact, to call it a strategy at all would be overly generous. I have often cited the three things that I believe a good forestry strategy should deliver. Such a strategy should deliver for the environment, for local economies and for the local communities located close to forests. I have often stated that we have managed to develop a policy that does none of those things. I think we can add a fourth aspect today. Good forestry policy should also deliver for the farming community, and the evidence we have heard shows very clearly that it has not done so.

In the first session today, we learned that a failure of policy, and I think that is the kindest way to put it, means that we have potentially wiped out an entire indigenous broadleaf species. I refer to the ash tree, the wood synonymous with our national sport and that should be one of the most protected parts of our natural heritage. That is being wiped out because somebody thought it was a good idea to import ash, a native species, at a time when the ash dieback disease was prevalent in countries from which those imports were coming.

What we have also learned today, and this is the starkest figure of all, is that an estimated 1,500 ha of forestry will be planted this year. If that does not signal that we are at a crisis point, then I do not know what will. We must get over those failures. We are told by Government that there will be a new forestry strategy. We need to learn, therefore, from the mistakes and ensure we put in place the provisions required to address all those previous mistakes.

Turning to my questions for the witnesses, and regarding the presentation we had earlier from farmers and landowners affected by the ash dieback disease, several solutions were mentioned by those farmers. I think the witnesses broadly agree with those solutions. Has a cost been associated with those potential solutions?

Regarding broader forestry issues, which are crucially important, does the Department have proposals or suggestions - assuming we can get all the issues already raised correct - to achieve a greater spread of planting? I mean that geographically, across farms, because I think there is a broad acceptance that rather than having an entire county planted with Sitka spruce, for example, it would be better if every county and most farmers within every county planted some of their land. That would be the preference, without forcing people down that route, and that is what we should be encouraging. Do the representatives of the Department have any propositions to put to the committee that we could suggest would facilitate such an approach and help to ensure that is the case? Are there also any proposals to encourage people to move from planting Sitka spruce to planting more native broadleaf trees, considering the financial implications in the short and medium term?