Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Coillte representatives for their contribution. I wish I had all day to ask questions because I have so many.

I am very much a supporter of forestry and I am very glad the Government was forced to reconsider its original commitment to sell Coillte. It is vital it stays in public ownership. Having said that, the witnesses are probably aware that there are very significant concerns over the operation of Coillte and its strategic direction.

We do not seem to have enough information on what is going on in Coillte. I have learned a bit today but I have many questions about many aspects of what is happening in the company. I have questions on the sale of land, which the witnesses have mentioned briefly. We have touched on the sale of land for particularly controversial developments, but we need to go into more detail. I have questions on afforestation, monoculture and the need to move to a greater level of planting of native species. I have questions on the environmental damage that may result from the over reliance on Sitka spruce. Many people suggest this will lead to damage to biodiversity, acidification of watercourses and so on. There is the question of whether we are realising the full potential of forestry for generating employment and revenue for the State.

What has become of the review of Coillte that was started in 2010? Who conducted that review? That review should inform any proper discussion on the Forestry Bill the witnesses mentioned. The group that conducted that overall review indicated it could not get access to the review of Coillte. Where is that review? Why was it suspended? Who carried it out? What is in it? Can we see it? We cannot even begin to discuss what is happening with forestry and the form of the Forestry Bill until we see what is in that.

On the issue of the sale of land, the witnesses said that in recent times since the Government decided to start its examination of whether to sell Coillte, it has not been selling big tranches of land to pension funds and so on. That is only two years. What about before that? How much land was sold to the Irish Forest Unit Trust? What is Coillte's involvement in the Irish Forest Unit Trust, which for the public's benefit includes Coillte, Bank of Ireland, Irish Life and AIB? What is Coillte's role in it? What is it for? Why would Coillte be selling land to the trust in the first place? How much land was sold to it before 2011?

On the environment, reforestation and so on, has Coillte conducted any soil or water analysis, given its obligation to protect the environment? That relates to the point about acidification, monoculture and so forth.

How much of the €400 million loan facility extended to Coillte under the Forestry (Amendment) Act 2009 has been allocated to the restoration and rehabilitation of the sites identified by Mr. Colm McCarthy as not commercially viable - I believe it was 500,000 acres - and particularly looking at the planting of native broadleaf species? How much of that money has gone to the development of wind energy? I am asking for the comparison of how much is going into afforestation with how much is going into the development of wind energy.

I accept what the witnesses have said that much of what is impacting on Coillte's strategy is the 1988 Act and the mandate it gives Coillte to return a dividend to the State, from which a number of things flow. The witnesses say that because of that commercial mandate or the requirement to return a dividend and also the fact it cannot benefit from premia for afforestation, it cannot do afforestation which should be its main task. I note this "trees are just the start of it" phrase. I would have thought that trees should be the start, middle and end of it for a semi-State company that is the biggest owner of forests in the State. On the job of meeting the 17% afforestation target, the Bacon report suggested we should be planting 15,000 ha to 20,000 ha, we are only planting 6,000 ha and the witnesses are saying Coillte cannot do it. It is a crazy and anomalous situation to have these targets while the biggest owner of forests in the State which is 100% owned by the public cannot plant these forests. That is a real problem.

If the Forestry Bill that is being discussed required Coillte to do that and gave it specific targets for afforestation as its central mandate, would that change the situation? I believe that is what should happen. Similarly, Coillte should be given targets - they should also exist more generally - dealing with climate change, the role afforestation can have in acting as a carbon sink and all those sorts of things.

On employment and the economy, a report suggests that several hundred jobs can be created for every 15,000 ha planted, yet we are not planting those forests. Would it be fair to suggest there are two approaches to forestry, one of which Coillte is following? We might it call the austerity and privatisation approach to forestry, which is to cut back on costs and not do anything that might require long-term investment. As a result, it is not able to increase the level of afforestation and is not generating a significant number of jobs. As the witnesses rightly admitted, 20% of the jobs have gone in Coillte and this is not a great model for forestry. We would be better having a model based on the requirement to grow forests. It should put more emphasis on growing native broadleaf forests and not be just about export orientation but also be about linking in with the development of the economy more widely in this country. That would require a substantial change in Coillte's mandate.

I was asked to ask Coillte a specific question. The ESB replacement pole scheme has been ongoing since 2008, requiring potentially 100,000 new poles at, I believe, around €500 per pole. If I am correct, Coillte is not involved in those replacement poles. I ask the witnesses to clarify whether Coillte is involved. I understand the poles being replaced were originally provided by Coillte but the replacement poles are being imported.

If this is the case why is it the case?

On the issue of the sales of land, Coillte stated recently it is not selling to big pension funds. I have asked about the Irish Forestry Unit Trust and I hope the witnesses will answer the question. Is there a reason Coillte could not give us, as part of its annual reporting or regular reporting to the public and to Parliament, details of all these sales, how decisions were made about selling or not and other important decisions relating to the public forest estate, its disposal and use?

With regard to the damaging impact of clear felling, Derrybrien was one of the worst environmental disasters we have ever seen and nearly led to the loss of a village. Several other similar landslides resulted from clear felling in Leitrim and Kerry. What does Coillte have to say about the damage clear felling can do given the critical role trees having in holding soil and mountains together?