Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their presentation. We are having a very wide ranging discussion on forestry. The first statement I want to make is that farmers' views of forestry as a viable option have worsened recently.

There are several reasons for that. We need to examine them and see why we are not meeting our targets and why farmers have changed their view of forestry. One reason for this is Coillte's practices regarding its contracts with farmers. That has left a very bad taste in people's mouths. Moreover, ash dieback has left people seriously economically inconvenienced, especially in my part of the country. I will say more on ash dieback in a minute.

Hedgerows have been mentioned several times this evening. Hedgerows are definitely not fully recognised in the carbon calculations. While it is tangential to forestry, this country is unique in the amount of hedgerow it has. There must be proper recognition of that.

The Minister said something earlier about the ownership of carbon credits. He referred to the fact that people who own forestry get certain tax concessions. Those concessions were granted to attract people to forestry. I am baffled by the argument that these tax concessions mean they do not have rights where carbon credits are concerned. I disagree with that 100%. Tax incentives are granted on farming, leasing etc. in other areas. No conditions are attached. If a man plants his grounds, the benefit should go to the owner of that ground. Tax incentives around the planting and sale of the product were offered to incentivise afforestation. Carbon credits must belong to the man who planted the land and owns the forest.

I refer to applications for permission to plant and the timeframe over which those permissions are granted. We intended to plant up to 10,000 or 12,000 ha. We are hitting less than 50% of those targets. I am told by people in the business that the delay in receiving an answer from the Department causes people to move on. They get frustrated with the whole system. I would like to get a timeframe. When a person applies for permission to plant land, over what timeframe does the answer come back? The same applies to clear felling. Foresters are frustrated. Over what timeframe is permission to clear fell granted?

The target is 8,000 ha. We are very much behind that. As things stand we do not have any earthly hope of getting within an ass's roar of 8,000 ha in the near future. We must have a root and branch review to explore why that is happening. We must re-examine the 20% rule that applies to unenclosed land whereby a farmer must plant 4 ha for every 1 ha of unenclosed land planted. That rule is totally inappropriate for certain parts of the country. I accept Deputy Kenny's point. Some unenclosed land is not suitable for forestry. It benefits the environment more if left unplanted. However some unenclosed land could be planted and the 20% rule is definitely a serious hindrance.

Another issue I wish to raise is hen harrier land. The restrictions applied to hen harrier land are the only case in which I have ever known the European Commission to completely devalue a person's asset without paying any kind of proper compensation. Hen harrier land has been devalued by 80%. One can compare the figures for what this land made before restrictions were put in place and what it makes now. Land makes roughly one fifth of what it made previously. There was an attempt at compensation for this land last year. An attempt is all it was. It went nowhere near restoring the capital value of the land. To be judged a success, any compensation scheme must restore the capital value of the land. I cannot understand how the Commission has gotten away with this so easily. I have raised this issue before and I will continue to raise it until those landowners get proper compensation.

Afforestation of hen harrier land would be a great help in restoring its capital value. Research shows that different levels of forestry growth would be beneficial for the hen harrier. While I accept that certain open spaces must be maintained, the scientific evidence supporting a blanket ban of plantation of hen harrier land is very vague at best. There is a very strong argument that staged growth of plantation in hen harrier areas would actually be good for the hen harrier population. That needs to be investigated. As I said, those landowners feel extremely sore about the way the capital value of their land has been completely eroded.

I refer also to ash dieback. We will hear a presentation from Limerick and Tipperary growers in a few minutes. We have seen a map showing the affected parts of the country. Kilkenny and Tipperary are the areas with the most cases. The Department is abdicating its responsibility in regard to ash dieback. We imported plants from the Continent at a time when this disease's presence there was widely known. The farmers that planted this did so in good faith. The Department allowed those plants to be imported into the country without any form of biosecurity. The landowners are now suffering serious financial losses. There is an onus on the Department to make good that loss. It can be done in several ways. The Minister said earlier that the Department is continuing to pay the premium. That is well and good, but the crop will have very little or no economic value. As has been said, in spite of the costs of tending it the crop is firewood at best. Its value has been completely eroded.

At the very least, there must be help for the farmer to clear the site if he or she wants to do so. If the farmer wants to put it back into grass production, he or she should receive help; if the farmer wants to replant the land, he or she should most definitely get a grant. That is the very least that could be done. The farmer should receive the premium for several years after replanting. That is only fair. This disease was completely outside landowners' control. It should not have happened and if there was more biosecurity it would not have happened. These men have suffered serious loss. My own county and County Kilkenny are the worst affected, but the disease is in a number of areas. This has gone on for too long. Some men were told they would not get any compensation because the trees in the diseased plantation were above a certain height. I am glad that a review of the scheme is ongoing. That review must recognise that there has been serious financial loss. Those people must be given options to allow them to get economic value back into their land. That must be addressed. We will hear from some of the landowners later on. It is a burning issue for those farmers, who feel very let down by the recognition they have gotten so far.