Mr. Donnacha Anhold:

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for affording me the opportunity to speak here today. I am a practising solicitor and principal of Carter Anhold and Co. Solicitors. I was requested to speak today on the issue of Coillte farm partnerships from the perspective of the farmer on behalf of a number of Coillte farm partners but particularly two farmers who are here today, namely, Mrs. Geraldine Corcoran, and Mr. John King.

Our firm represents a large group of forestry farmers who are engaged in partnership agreements with Coillte. While I may speak here today in general terms, when I speak specifically it will be only in relation to Mrs. Corcoran's matter.

For the purposes of clarity, and for the purpose of the committee, there are some Coillte farm partners who are engaged in either arbitration or possible potential litigation with Coillte, and any general references I make I want to say, for the purposes of clarity, will not be referring to those particular matters.

What are the Coillte-led farm partnerships currently in existence which farmers such as Mrs. Corcoran and Mr. King are involved in? In and around the years 1998 to 2005, Coillte advertised, published a brochure and approached farmers to enter into commercial relationships. What was on offer at the time, in the main, was: farmers retain 100% ownership of their lands; advance payment of €635 per hectare were to be made; a forest premium paid by the forestry service for 15 to 20 years; the farmer to receive 80% of thinning profits; and the farmer to receive 55% of clearfell profits. While 55% of the clearfell profits appeared attractive to the farmers at the time, the brochure was silent on the issue of the farmers having to replant after clearfell cultivation. We understand this obligation to replant was a standard condition attaching to all felling licences at that time under the 1946 Forestry Act and under subsequent Forestry Acts. Coillte was then to manage the plantations for the term of the agreement, and the farmers were to take a back seat and collect payments or profits as agreed.

Many of the potential farmers at the time, including Mrs. Corcoran and Mr. King, felt that Coillte as a semi-State body would be trustworthy, reliable, dependable and professional. This placed Coillte as an over and above choice for forestry farmers, such as the two farmers who are here today compared with other private operators operating in this space at the time.

What agreements were entered into at that time? There was a lease created in favour of Coillte over the forestry lands, generally for a period of 40 to 42 years. Alongside this and parallel to this lease agreement was a farm partnership agreement. This was effectively a commercial agreement between Coillte and the individual forestry farmer such as Mrs. Corcoran, and Mr. King. The main characteristics of these partnership agreements in short were as follows: Coillte was also to be granted a licence over the farmer's lands, contemporaneous with the lease; Coillte and the partner to engage jointly in active commercial management of the forestry with commercial management to be conducted in the best interests of the joint venture parties on sound commercial profit-making principles; periodic management meetings to be held, to consult on the condition, maintenance, progress and growth of the crop; in terms of grants, Coillte was to retain the afforestation grant and farmers to get the premium grant; Coillte was to pay the partner 80% of the thinning profits by way of an annuity and Coillte then to retain 20% balance of those thinning profits; farmers to get 55% of the clearfell profits; and there was a first option created, in favour of Coillte, to purchase the forestry lands if the farmer ever wanted to sell.

At the commencement of these farm partnership matters things seemed to be operating well and there was engagement with the forestry farm partners. However, issues began to arise and mostly within five years of the new plantations. The bigger issues which have arisen to date, and of which the farmers wish to make the committee aware, are as follows. First, after year 1, periodic management meetings rarely occurred and in some instances did not occur at all plus after that farmers got tick-box forms sent to them in the post for completion, signing and return. Little or no physical consultations took place on the ground.

Second, thinnings, as many people know, typically occur in new forests within years 15 to 18, depending on the condition of the forest. Thinnings sometimes took place and in some instances thinnings have not occurred at all. Where thinnings took place, some farmers still await payment and some are waiting for a period of five years. Some farmers received thinning profits but no details were provided to the farmers or farm partners on the volume of timber removed from the forestry, the price achieved at the sawmill gate, the name of the sawmill sold to, how the best price was achieved for the said time, or details or particulars about costs. We have, on occasion, both raised questions about these details. Coillte has classed this as commercially sensitive information and we did not get the information we sought.

I will outline the three main issues that concern Mrs. Corcoran. First, she has an area of broadleaves and larch on her farm, which has been neglected in the main, is in need of better management and is meeting its full potential at the moment. Second, Mrs. Corcoran received a statement from Coillte in 2018 forecasting thinning profits but with no details on the breakdown of costs or how the profits were achieved. Mrs. Corcoran has tried to contact Coillte to obtain these details but it has not been provided. Only one management meeting appears to have taken place so far in 2015 but no minutes of that meeting were provided to Mrs. Corcoran. Third, a section of Mrs. Corcoran's forestry, which is no fault of anyone's, has suffered from ash dieback and it has died off but replaced by an Alder crop which Mrs. Corcoran feels is of low or poor commercial value. The issue here is that there was no consultation with Mrs. Corcoran in advance.

Again, the main tenet of what is arising here is a lack of engagement with farm partners. There is a situation where the farm partners feel left out in the cold and there are issues affecting their forestry, which are not being addressed on the ground. The farm partners call on Coillte to exercise candour in relation to the issues that have occurred and to accept, deal with and remediate or repair them. One thing they do want to say is that nothing here is beyond remediation or repair and can be dealt with. However, many of forestry farmers are in their 60s, 70s or 80s and they rely on these forestry areas as part of their pensions or overall retirement plan so need these issues dealt with urgently. What we are asking here for is clear engagement, open and transparent communication, and accountability to its commercial partners.

While these are somewhat private arrangements or agreements with farm partners, they are arrangements that have been dealt with by a semi-State body. Again, what is being asked for is engagement, upfront discussion, openness and transparency in relation to the affairs of Coillte and its farmers, and dealing with farmers on a face-to-face basis.

I thank the committee members for their time and allowing me to speak. I welcome any questions.