Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to have this opportunity to present a couple of the policy issues being dealt with by the Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The first is forestry. The committee has devoted a lot of time to forestry and, unfortunately, the sector is under extreme pressure. Afforestation levels are the lowest since 1946 and the failure to meet the programme for Government planning targets has resulted in a missed opportunity to remove 8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Farmers have walked away from the afforestation scheme, with just 100 farmers planting land in 2020. This is due to ongoing issues in the forestry licensing system, incompatibility with the green, low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, and linked issues which have seriously damaged landowners' confidence in forestry, none more so than farmers with forestry which is fatally infected with ash dieback and who are left with dying or rotting trees on their land. These farmers have not been fairly treated when compared with comparable diseases in agriculture such tuberculosis, TB, and brucellosis.

Intervention is needed. I ask that everything possible be done to address this issue to try to restore farmer confidence. First, we must ensure a fair scheme is available without delay to those who are suffering as a result of ash dieback. I suggest that farmers with ash dieback be allowed to claim premium on re-afforested land for the 15 years of growth of the new plantation. Following the recent legal review of the forestry licensing system, what changes are expected to ensure we have a system in place that is capable of processing licences within a reasonable timeframe of 120 days, including all support schemes such as native woodland conservation, forest roads and ash dieback? Has the legal review concluded that the thinning of forests is an essential part of woodlands maintenance and that, therefore, a licence to thin should not be required? This is one of the major logjams in the system. To convince farmers to play a key role in climate change mitigation we must first make sure farmers are properly supported.

The other issue I want to address briefly is climate change. We have had joint committee meetings with the climate action committee. It is essential that we meet the targets in the agrifood sector and in agriculture generally. A separate budget has to be put in place for farmers to invest in modern technology in order to meet the targets we have under climate change. The current targeted agriculture modernisation schemes, TAMS, budget and its ceilings will not incentivise farmers to do what is necessary. A few days ago the committee met with people to discuss solar panels and the problems they have getting solar panels in place on farms. There is a requirement for planning permission. We have to remove VAT on the panels and deal with access to the grid for surplus electricity. There is a lot of technology at present for the management of slurry, with infrastructure in farm buildings such as rubbers, slats and so forth, and there is ongoing technology on feed additives. However, it will cost money for farmers to put all this modern technology in place. A separate budget for incentives to embrace this modern technology would greatly enhance our ability to meet the targets we have set for emissions reductions under climate change.