Mr. Colm Hayes:

I wish to clarify the question around the methodology, because Deputy Martin Browne stated that there is double counting within the methodology. I can assure the Deputy that there absolutely is not. The volume figure is calculated. The sector will be well aware of it because it is a transparent methodology. Coillte operates all clearfell and it provides the volume figure for its own sites, because it is in a position to do so. For private sites we assume a figure of 330 cu. m per hectare where the site is clearfelled and 70 cu. m per hectare where it is thinned. However, if it is a thinning-only licence, it gets 70 cu. m. If it is a felling-only licence, it gets 330 cu. m. If it is a felling and thinning licence, we only include the clearfell figure. If anything, we are on the conservative side because the site will yield more timber over the lifetime of its licence. If anything, we are underestimating the figure. We are absolutely and definitely not overstating it. If it is helpful, I can put this methodology in writing to the committee afterwards.

The other question that Deputy Browne raised was around felling applications in the past year and why the figures were different to previous years. He is absolutely correct to pick up on that. That largely comes down to Coillte. Coillte will generally apply for felling licences in a batch application. Coillte did not do much of that last year but we expect such an application to come in soon, most probably for the Coillte 2022 programme. It is not like the private licences, where there is a steady input of licence applications every week. The inputs and outputs from Coillte applications and licences can skew the figures in any one year. It is important to bear that in mind when studying the figures. I hope that answers the Deputy's question on why the figures in 2020 were a little different to other years.