Mr. Matt Staunton:

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to address the committee. As the committee is no doubt aware, a political decision on this issue is imminent. This union's campaign is unique so far as it is not, at least at first glance, an industrial relations issue. When it comes to the State's forestry land, we believe everyone is a stakeholder. Therefore, when the union's Coillte branch began its campaign in late 2012, reaching out to people and organisations of like mind was an important first step.

In general, we believe that selling the rights to fell and sell timber to private operators would jeopardise a profitable State company and public access to forests and result in the closure of many, if not all, of the nation's private sawmills. It would deliver a devastating blow to tourism and forestry if access to our forests was to be restricted by private interests.

We believe that the financial return on the proposed sale would only generate enough cash to pay three weeks interest on the nation's debts. I describe this return as a few grains of sand in a desert of debt, which is a fair and accurate description. Also, it would be a net cost to the State according to Mr. Peter Bacon. Quite simply, the proposal does not add up.

The Coillte branch of IMPACT, representing 600 workers at the State firm, began a campaign against the proposed sale in November 2012. We reached out to a coalition of other organisations to form the Save Our Forests campaign. These include the Society of Irish Foresters, Birdwatch Ireland, Mountaineering Ireland, and more recently, Scouting Ireland - an organisation which has never become involved in any political issue.

Mountaineering Ireland proved to be a key partner on the issue. It had begun to inform about the negative effects of a possible sale of State forests nearly two years earlier. For Mountaineering Ireland, it was all about access. For us, it was primarily about jobs, forestry, and the wider economic issues that were likely to occur as a result of any sale. By linking together, we were at liberty to talk about the full range of issues with authority and credibility. This pushed open doors for everyone involved.

On the issue of the forest harvesting rights, we knew it was never going to be enough for us to simply stand up and say "we are not having it". We knew we had to make the argument and we had to make it credibly. The materials we developed for the campaign, including the brochure and website, were created with this objective in mind. The Save Our Forests brochure which was developed by John Prior of the union's Coillte branch examined the social, economic and environmental case against selling Coillte assets. It was published in November 2012 and a copy was sent to every Deputy, Senator, councillor and Leader company in the country.

Our website Save Our Forests.ie became the online focal point of the campaign and we developed an associated Facebook page as part of that process. The Save Our Forests brochure highlighted the issue of jobs and revealed that the proposed sale could jeopardise up to 12,000 jobs in the Irish forest products sector which is currently worth €2.2 billion per year, including €286 million in exports.

As the union wanted to take the economic argument further, we took steps to properly investigate the economic consequences of the proposal. We commissioned economist Mr. Peter Bacon to weigh up the economic viability of the proposed sale. As it turned out, Mr. Bacon unearthed some uncomfortable truths. His ultimate assessment was that "the economic rationale for the proposed sale of Coillte harvesting rights no longer stands up and cannot be justified". This became the core message of our campaign. Mr. Bacon's assessment was, to put it bluntly, a cold look at the bottom line. He might well have concluded that the sale had some economic merit, and might even have concluded that a cost neutral sale of an asset, with a short-term gain, may have warranted some approval. We believe Mr. Bacon's conclusion drove a stake through the heart of the proposal.

His assessment, which we published in January, found that the State would remain liable for costs of €1.3 billion following a sale of the harvesting rights. Those costs included a loss of funds from Coillte's profit flow of €565 million, a deficit caused by the sell off of €313 million, the economic costs of Coillte job losses of €19 million, a Coillte debt liability of €172 million, a pension liability of €130 million and a loss of amenity of €105 million, amounting to a total of €1.3 billion.

Mr. Bacon found that to cover these costs, Coillte would need to sell timber at €78 per cubic metre, which is well above current or recent prices. The average recent price paid for Coillte supplies to sawmills has been just over €43 per cubic metre. This meant that, rather than generating State income, a sale of Coillte harvesting rights would represent a substantial cost to the Exchequer. The proposal, as it stands, requires the State to continue to maintain the land on which the forests are planted, despite the loss of profits currently generated by Coillte timber sales.

For us, the biggest kicker in Mr. Bacon's report was the estimated return on the sale of the harvesting rights at €774 million as an absolute outside maximum.

With an obligation to use half of the funds raised to pay off debt, as part of the troika bailout agreement, this would leave €387 million. Mr. Bacon's report concludes, "The funds raised would facilitate repayment of 0.2% of the total debt under this measure or provide 6.2% of the interest cost in 2012, about three weeks of interest. Clearly, from an accounting point of view, this transaction is marginal almost to the point of being negligible".

In addition to the very real risk of job losses at Coillte, there is also a substantial risk of job losses in the industries reliant on a strong supply of good quality domestic timber product. Mr. Bacon's report states the proposed sale has the potential to disrupt the timber processing sector owing to the lack of certainty over future supply. The report states job losses, which could arise in the processing industry if timber were to be exported without processing in Ireland, would add to future costs to the State. These risks were further highlighted in a special briefing for Oireachtas Members last February, in which we participated. Mr. Pat Glennon of the Irish Timber Council, ITC, the representative body for Ireland's sawmills, addressed the issue from the perspective of the timber industry. He said the proposed sale of Coillte's harvesting rights could lead to the closure of all ten of Ireland's sawmills, with the loss of 2,500 jobs. The ITC had just published a report which had found that it made no sense for the Government to proceed with the sale, from either a commercial, economic or financial point of view. The loss of jobs in the wider timber industry would disproportionately affect rural communities where the prospects of replacement employment are minimal, at best.

The inclusion of the wide range of leisure groups in the Save Our Forests campaign reflects very real concerns about restricted access to, and through, Coillte forests, in the event that private operators acquire the harvesting rights. Prospective buyers, set on the commercial exploitation of timber, would be unlikely to agree to maintain safe and optimum access to forests without significant incentives which are unlikely to be affordable. This would severely restrict countryside access in Ireland, in which there are no public rights of way over private land and 18 million visits are made to Coillte forests each year. This could also have a major impact on the tourism sector. Coillte estimates the value of tourism to these amenities at €270 million each year.

Drawing on the limited privatisation experience in New Zealand, we were able to say commercially-driven owners or concessions could not be relied upon to interpret access liberally or undertake the expenditure necessary to maintain forest land for safe and optimum recreational use. It is impossible to imagine how the State could maintain public access to Coillte lands after harvesting rights were sold to private companies. The Bacon report also identifies that Irish forests do not have a clear physical separation between forests of amenity value and forests of commercial value: "Coillte forests with amenity values are mostly commercial plantations, i.e., they have been planted, often with the more commercial species, with a view to eventual felling to realise the timber value". A good example is the cheek by jowl arrangement in places such as Ballinstoe, County Wicklow, where existing mountain bike trails weave in and out of areas where forest land has been commercially harvested. Coillte's open access policy means that a balance has been successfully struck between commercial and leisure activity. This balance would be unthinkable if that crop of trees was held by private interests.

IMPACT views the proposal to sell Coillte's forest harvesting rights in the light of the sale of other State assets. We observe that the State has often sold State assets in haste and then been forced to repent at leisure. Since 1990 when it started to become fashionable to sell off State assets, some 19 have been sold, barely generating €1 billion between them, when times were much more favourable for economic investments. There are two main reasons any sane Government would consider selling a State asset - either to improve public services or to generate much needed cash. This proposal clearly meets neither. The first State asset to be sold was Greencore in 1990. I wonder what we did with the paltry £100 million gained. Today we could do with the beet factories and industry jobs sacrificed in that failed experiment. Eircom which bucked the trend was sold with unseemly haste, with its entire essential infrastructure. It was mercilessly stripped of its assets by several owners and left with a significant debt. This was a profitable company with a leading edge in the development of mobile and broadband technology. It was squandered for short-term gains. The sale has hindered the development of broadband in Ireland significantly ever since and put a dent in the economy's international competitiveness.

Coillte does not cost the taxpayer anything, but it will immediately require ongoing State subsidies if the sale goes ahead. We have a fast growing, high quality sustainable crop, which was only made possible by decades of carefully skilled planning. To abandon such a profitable State enterprise, for a three weeks interest repayment and a legacy of maintenance costs, would be a measure beyond desperate.

The Save Our Forests campaign has spent the past six months or so putting these messages into the public domain. The Government has acknowledged that the arguments are compelling and they have been factored into its considerations. We need the members of the committee to pass on the message that this is the chance for our parliamentarians to clearly state the forests should not be sold but developed and enhanced instead. It is an opportunity for members to make it clear that to sell at such a loss would be an appalling act of defeatism that would numb the ambition and hope of the nation. It would send the message that we could not do it for ourselves, that we could not reap the benefits or maintain existing profits and jobs in this vital industry. This does not mean, however, that we are opposed to change. Positive reforms to help to secure the future of this vital public resource and genuinely enhance the operation and profitability of Coillte, thus increasing its return to the Exchequer and the taxpayer, would be welcome. IMPACT and other unions in the sector would gladly contribute to an exploration of possibilities in that regard.