Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan:

It is a point that was very well made in the negotiations. As Senator Daly rightly said, we know and we have highlighted the barriers in repeated reviews going back to 2010, when we saw planting figures fall from the peaks of 1995. These things were continually highlighted, including the replanting obligation. Given a lot of what was in the Mackinnon report and what has been highlighted in subsequent reports, we have known this because the stakeholders within the sector, farmers and previous witnesses have said it. Senator Daly is right that we know the barriers and the issue is finding workable solutions to those to make the system work.

It takes 18 months to get an afforestation application. That was the average turnaround time last year and it is an improvement in the system under Project Woodland. It takes 15 months to get a felling licence, which is also an improved timeline. We are asked why people are not going ahead with an application when they were expecting to have heard within four months and they did not hear anything until 18 months later. That is the reason. People realise they are entering into a system where they are going to have no control over the management of their land, which is a huge issue. It has been said that people need that guarantee. There needs to be improved communication between the applicant and the Department so that applicants know where their application is and that it is not going beyond the four months. If it is going beyond the four months, they should know there is a legitimate reason and that this will be communicated. They should also know that there is a positive relationship between farmers and the Department to achieve that and that it is proactively working. As was rightly said by Deputy Fitzmaurice, we have a land availability issue and we need to be proactively working between farmers and the Department and all the other stakeholders to actively get forest into all suitable land types. We should be trying to remove all of those barriers and optimise the land that is available to forestry. We need to first have those guarantees to get that appetite back, and that needs to be embedded.

We also need to de-risk the investment. Forestry was always considered a very safe investment but it is now considered very risky. We have seen environmental policy evolving at such a rapid rate that all of us dealing with it are finding it hard to keep up. People are planting something now and it is 65% productive. What happens when they are thinning it or clear-felling it in 30 years' time? Will they be allowed to have any productive species in it? What area will be productive and not productive? That is where the payment for ecosystem services is critical because we need to de-risk it. People need to have that linked with their timber values so that if they get into this land use, and even if we evolve and change policy, they will still have a payment from that land which is the value of the timber production.

That comes back to ash dieback as well. We know with climate that the risk of disease and pest is increasing, and we need to provide some protection for that. The key areas to getting that appetite back are to de-risk it, provide the guarantees and, as Mr. Rushe said, ensure the replanting obligation is a carrot rather than a stick. Most people, when they get to clear-fell stage, will see the benefit of it but it is acting as a huge barrier.

With regard to broadleaf and the question of planting a hectare or small areas, I think there is an interest among farmers. However, I think it is very much landscaping and I do not see it applying to large areas. As Mr. Rushe said, there is a huge interest over time to plant areas, such as areas in a field that would be ideal and small areas around the farm. There is an interest and there will be a take-up of that, even without the conifer species. However, that does not address what the previous witnesses said, namely, it is not a forest industry. It is landscape and biodiversity planting, and that is an element within it and something important that needs to be encouraged, but it is not what a forest industry is built on. That is the big issue we have. The areas that are being planted are continually getting smaller and smaller, and we are moving away from commercial forestry into areas where farmers would find it very difficult to thin and to manage in the future because they would find it difficult to get people to come in and manage it.

On wider agroforestry, there is a huge push from the European level on this. It is a new system. I think the replanting obligation needs to be removed. We cannot have that replanting obligation with agroforestry.

With regard to ash dieback, like the committee, we have heard there is going to be some change within the scheme and it was mooted at our meeting this morning with the Minister that it is being looked at. As to the urgency this issue is being shown, it is being pushed back now as the Department deals with the forestry programme and it was pushed back while it was dealing with the licences. This is a thorn in the side and it needs to be addressed.