Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses today. I have listened to what they have had to say I will make a statement with perhaps a few questions mixed into the statement. They have said we have the lowest planting since 1943 and there is a loss of confidence. For a long time, we have been saying it is a nightmare out there. There have been hardly any improvements. Despite public representative support and several reports on relevant issues, for example the Mackinnon report and several reports from this committee, nothing much has happened simply because those empowered to make decisions in government have been led a merry dance by officials within the forest service and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine. Unless there is a change of leadership and direction in both the forest service and the Department, there will be no significant progress in resolving any of these issues which plague the forestry programme.

To date the resolution measures for the ash dieback crisis, in which more than 26,000 ha of ash are dying on the stand, have proved totally inadequate and are unfit for purpose. In the first instance there seems to be no understanding of the magnitude of the problem as well as a failure to accept that all 26,000 ha of ash as well as ash trees in our hedgerows will die as a consequence of this disease. There is a simple solution: a realistic grant to support removal of all ash plantation and enable replacement of the removed ash with the payment of premiums for 20 years. The current rate of grant assistance is totally inadequate and no premium payments attach to the current schemes. One farmer growing forestry has invoices revealing a cost of €15,000 for removal of ash from one site for which he received just €5,000 in grant aid. Furthermore, the process adopted by the forest service in approving any such support is onerous and causes nothing but grief for owners dealing with forest service officials. I ask the witnesses to give their thoughts on this.

Licensing for every aspect of forestry activity remains an absolute nightmare. Would the witnesses agree that unless one entity is empowered to make decisions, delays will continue to plague applications? The forest service must become a service. It must reach out to owners, communicate properly and stop pretending that its decisions are founded on consultation. A citizen's assembly with the recommendations flowing from it which do not adequately reflect the views of owners is in no way reflective of reality. Policy decisions should not be developed on such false assumptions and recommendations.

Would the witnesses agree that the new forestry programme, although heralded as the way forward, will not achieve success either in encouraging farmers and owners to plant trees or in achieving climate mitigation? Regarding the Coillte and Gresham House joint venture, what is done is done, as the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine has acknowledged. He announced that this was not the preferred way forward. The Minister needs to come clean and outline in specific detail the preferred way forward to restore confidence in the forestry programme.

I could write a book about the interaction some of my constituents have had with the forest service over several years and all the respective complications. I will give a simple example. One man has been waiting on approval for an application for the establishment of a native woodland for over two years, which is indicative of how the forest service operates and why it needs a major overhaul.