Mr. Colm Hayes:

We are here to build on the November session with the Minister. As the Chairman said, our statement is taken as read. It does contain some important updates and I am delighted that it has been circulated. There have been a number of updates across forestry since November, which does not seem that long ago. The Chairman has asked us to focus today on licensing and ash dieback and we will do that.

I counted five questions altogether from Deputy Carthy. Please remind me if I miss one but I will try and deal with them as they arose.

The first question is on why planting rates are below the approvals rate. As the Deputy pointed out, approximately 4,300 ha were approved in 2019 and only approximately 2,400 ha planted. There are a number of explanations. The highest months for approvals came at the end of the year and we expect these licences to have a three-year duration. Some of this planting will inevitably take place this year but once we grant the licence, it is at the discretion of the landowner and the forestry company as to whether they wish to proceed. There is an issue, which we have flagged previously, with the low conversion rate from approvals to planting, which does not happen in felling and roads. Usually approximately 60% of all hectares approved end up being planted. That is something that is in everybody's interest to resolve given the difficulties there are right now in the processing of a licence.

Our figures would show that the sector has just under 5,000 ha at its disposal, which are completely out of appeals. Inevitably, landowners will change their minds. I am sure the delay in issuing licences has played its part. We would hold our hands up on that. There are a number of factors but there is almost a need to talk to landowners and companies individually as to the exact reasons. As we have said, it is certainly our goal, and it should be everybody's goal, to drive up the conversion rate of number of hectares approved to number of hectares planted, and to make it almost one for one if we can, although we accept some fall-off.

The issue of the farmer premium and non-farmer premium has arisen. There was a decision taken in the current forestry programme to flatten those into one level. As Deputy Carthy rightly points out, it has caused the previous ratio to disappear.

There are now more people who plant classified as non-farmers than farmers. This is an issue. The last thing we want to see is farmers disengaging from afforestation. We absolutely see them as central and core to planting. They are the biggest landowners. As many people point out, forestry offers a fantastic alternative land use for farmers and an alternative and secure income as well, so we want to see them engaged. It would be a huge pity if that was not the case. Ultimately, on the question of whether there should be a distinction between the non-farmer and farmer rate, we have extended the current forestry programme but we are kicking off the drafting of a new national forest strategy. I have no doubt this will be one of the issues but that is probably the place for it to be discussed. At its heart, we want farmers to be engaged as well.

The question of a planning grant is something that was recommended in the Mackinnon report last year. As I noted in the submission to the committee, the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, has commissioned Jo O'Hara, an external consultant, to advise her on the implementation of the Mackinnon report. I am fairly certain that is something that will feature there. We set out our stall in terms of dealing with this crisis last summer. We made it clear that dealing with volume was what this sector needed to stabilise things. The number of licences does not always equate to volume, be it hectares or kilometres. A good quality NIS that comes in from an applicant makes our life easier. If one's side is screened in, there are two ways in which one can have it dealt with. A good quality NIS coming in is something that helps us. We flagged that up and interested applicants availed of that.

There is a question on broadleaf planting. We welcome the increase to 34% last year. That did not come about by accident, but as a result of targeted policy changes. Many members of the committee will be aware of the midterm review of the forestry programme in 2018 when we got a significant increase of approximately 8% in the rates for broadleaf grants and premiums. We have developed a number of other initiatives. As members of the committee may have seen, last week the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, and the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, participated in an initiative with Aldi, which wants to plant 1 million native trees in partnership with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine under the woodland environmental fund. It is a public-private model. A number of initiatives have taken the rate of broadleaf planting from 21% to 34%.

I will go back to the point on the national forest strategy. The Minister of State, Senator Hackett, has made it quite clear that native woodlands and broadleaf trees must play a bigger role. The policy forum for discussing that will be the national forest strategy. It is definitely on the right road. It has taken a sharp increase, which is very much related to the policy changes that have been made. Farmers, to their credit, and forestry companies have responded. We are very pleased with that.

Deputy Carthy's final question was on planting on peatlands and the role of Bord na Móna. The Department is certainly aware that Bord na Móna and Coillte are collaborating on a potential, very significant, native woodland project to plant native woodlands on former cutaway bogs. At face value, it is something we absolutely support because it is very clear that if we are to achieve the planting targets set out in the climate action plan and the programme for Government, we are going to need all landowners to plant trees. I refer not just to farmers, but to public bodies with big tracts of land as well. Of course, the planting of native woodlands on peatlands will be done with full environmental compliance at its heart. We know that Coillte and Bord na Móna are working on an environmental impact assessment which we expect to receive in the near future. There is no question of this being planted without the full environmental rigours being applied. If it is not suitable, it is not suitable. If it is suitable, it would be fantastic but it is an open question at the moment. We wait to see what the environmental impact assessment, EIA, will show us.

I hope I have answered Deputy Carthy's questions.