Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I hope I am continuing at the right point because I am not sure where I finished the last day. Therefore, if I read a point twice into the record the Members will understand.

Perhaps the wording of section 6 is too vague and might be open to arbitrary compulsory purchases without the need to prove there is a public interest in doing so. Perhaps that section requires amendment to make more precise the circumstances under which a compulsory purchase might be made. We certainly do not want to have situations where for example land might be subject to a compulsory purchase order so that it could be then sold on to a commercial interest, as happened in the case of Bellanaboy, and as people have expressed concern in relation to wind farms. I do not believe there can be too much objection to the Minister having an input into forestry plans, as proposed in section 6(b) as there needs to be control over the manner in which forests in private ownership are used. However, there is perhaps scope for greater consultation between the Department and private owners in the framing of such plans.

As part of a plan to extract more value from the forests with a view to expanding the overall sector, perhaps it might be an idea to hold a consultation with private owners in order to find out how individual plans for the use of the forests might be co-ordinated with a national plan. There is the question of whether such a plan exists, as one of the complaints against Coillte from people with a direct interest in the sector is that there is no overall plan, or that if there is one, no one knows what it might be. Again that ties in with the overall perception and suspicion of Coillte as a body shrouded in secrecy and not subject to the transparency and inquiry that pertains to other public bodies. I suggest to the Minister that he make it a priority to frame a long-term plan for the forestry sector and that this be subject to debate and scrutiny at committee level in here, and to wider consultation with the private sector in forestry, and others with an interest in the use of the forests for recreational and other purposes. If that was to be carried out, the proposals in the Bill would not only make more sense but would be more broadly acceptable as they would be seen as part of a cohesive plan, rather than, as some suspect, simply the random conferring of extra powers without any real understanding of how they might be utilised.

That aspect also relates to section 10 which concerns the drafting, submission and approval of forestry management plans by owners of private forests. This is a sound proposal and one that is necessary to ensure that forestry in private ownership is properly utilised. However, perhaps more thought needs to go into the framing of such plans. Rather than individuals submitting their own plans based on the utilisation of their forestry, perhaps there could be local area management plans, centred on either the productive or amenity usage of the forestry. For example, an individual owner's plan for the utilisation of their forest might tie in with potential employment opportunities through the processing of the wood, or even in tourism projects. In general I can see no fault with the provisions to ensure the protection of existing forestry as outlined in Part 3 of the Bill. However, I reiterate what I said earlier regarding the role of Coillte in this regard.

While the regulations governing private forestry owners are quite strict, and will be tightened up if this legislation is passed, there appears to be little onus on Coillte to observe the same criteria in regard to the protection of the forestry and the natural environment for other plant and animal species related to the forest.

For example, Coillte sold 400 acres of public forestry land at Bellanaboy to the Corrib gas consortium in order that it might built a refinery there. As far as I am aware, an environmental impact assessment was not carried out in respect of the site and, since I became a Member in 2002, successive Ministers have repeatedly refused to explain the circumstances of that sale. While it is right and proper that private forestry owners have an obligation to protect the environment, surely the same obligation must also to apply to Coillte.

Concerns have also been expressed in respect of what is proposed in section 17 with regard to, for example, the regulation of tree felling and requirements relating to replanting. One objection is that the requirement to replace a felled tree with one of the same species imposes too much of a restriction on forestry owners in the context of how they might utilise their lands. While there is much emphasis on the need for management plans, it could be argued in this instance that the stringent conditions regarding replanting take no account of such plans. If, for example, a forestry plan submitted by an individual owner proposes that existing trees be replaced with a different species during the next replanting period, would such a move be automatically rule out? There is considerable debate about different species and, in particular, about the replacement of imported pine species with native varieties. In general, this appears to be favoured and is a factor in the cultivation of trees suitable for processing into alternative fuels. Is there not a danger then that the provisions relating to replanting might impose overly stringent conditions and, therefore, prevent the transition to other species which have more economic potential and which could give rise to greater benefits?

Some people would argue along the same lines against the requirement in section 18 that felling licences will be required in order for landowners to thin trees. While there does need to be supervision of forestry in the context of the preservation of stock and so on, surely a large degree of discretion can be granted to and trust can be placed in individual owners when it comes to thinning, which is an essential part of forestry management. Does this not impose too many restrictions and introduce an unnecessary level of regulation? It has been pointed out that this has already given rise to a bureaucratic backlog, with officials unable to keep pace with the number of applications for felling licences. I understand that only half such applications are processed in the year in which they are made.

The language used in section 22 is quite harsh. In the past I have pointed out, in the context of farm regulations and the fisheries protection legislation introduced by the previous Government, that there is a tendency to use terms more appropriate to criminal activity and to criminalise bad practices on the part of farmers and fishermen. It appears the trend in this regard is being continued in the legislation before the House. Of course those who are engaged in fraudulent or other criminal behaviour must be subject to sanction. However, many involved in the rural economy are of the view that an unwarranted level of suspicion and bureaucracy obtains in respect of them. They are also of the opinion that the Bill continues this trend.

I look forward to the Minister of State's responses in respect of the issues which have been raised. I hope he will be in a position to take on board some of the points that have been made. It is important that the right framework for the development of forestry here is put into place. I hope this debate and the possible amendment of some sections of the legislation will contribute in that regard.

See this speech in context