Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will move on to the review.

Other speakers have said the targets were not met. In 2018, in particular, we were considerably below target. In other years improvements were made, but in 2018, the very year in which we were all coming under pressure on climate change, it was down. I would have thought a mid-term review in February 2018 would have looked at climate change and many other variables. What was done with broadleaves was welcome. Why was the mid-term review so specific and restricted? Why has no cost benefit analysis been made since? I understand the Department had to do it before it and that is good, but it has not been done since. Mr. Gleeson is talking about doing it in the future. I do not know whether the best terminology to use is a cost benefit analysis, a review or a post-project review. However, nothing was done, except a limited mid-term review with very restricted criteria.

The forestry programme lists ten criteria. There are 11 measures listed on page 147 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. The forestry programme focuses on two. Measures 1 and 3 accounted for 95% of the spend in 2018, the very year in which the level of planting was down. That means that nine other measures were not getting a look in. Interestingly, the ones that got in were the construction of forest roads to allow access and native woodlands, on which progress was made, which I welcome. However, some of the other measures are very good, including close-to-home woodlands, I imagine in city and rural areas and so on. I would have thought a review would have looked at all of these to see why they were not being pushed because, presumably, they were equally as important.