John Halligan (Waterford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Ireland's forestry sector was once described as a sleeping giant, an asset with so much more to deliver to the economy in the context of providing income for forest owners through direct and indirect employment, exports and home-grown sustainable and renewable sources of energy. Output from the industry has been estimated at approximately €2.2 billion since 1994. Forestry has delivered an average output of 5.65% per annum. I am not definite that this is the actual figure and, if volatility is taken into account, it could be below 5%. This high-quality Irish asset is too often overlooked. The forestry service remains inadequately staffed and is ill-equipped to deal with the increasing volume of applications from those in the private forestry sector whose trees are rapidly approaching maturity. On the horizon are possible plans on the part of the State to sell off our forestry. That would be a retrograde step and it would constitute a terrible move in the long term.

On average, it currently takes approximately 12 months for a thinning or tree felling licence to be granted. That is ridiculous. I can say this because I live in the vicinity of the Comeragh Mountains and I know many of the people who work in the forests there. I have not even referred to the incredibly frustrating position in which forestry owners find themselves in the context of trying to organise contractors, sales deliveries and timely thinning. More than 19,500 landowners have planted in excess of 250,000 ha of forestry since 1980. Much of this is now ready for thinning. Forecasts indicate that the number of trees harvested from private forests will increase tenfold during the next 15 years. The Bill does not appear to contain anything much that will change the system used to grant licences. I may have missed something and, if I have, perhaps the Minister of State will point it out.

The rules and regulations which govern the forestry sector are extremely outdated. Any move to alter the position in this regard would be welcome. There is a great deal in the Bill which will add to the red tape with which forestry owners are already expected to deal. The administrative duties for which it makes provision will result in the imposition of further costs on the owners of forests and the staff of the forestry service. Despite the huge potential that exists in this area, the Bill contains little that will assist in increasing afforestation rates. The new management plan requirements - which will add another layer of bureaucracy - will be off-putting for forest owners. I have spoke to quite a few of the latter in respect of this issue.

There is a major challenge for the industry in the context of the protection of our forests. In this regard, I refer to the threat posed by forest fires. I have been informed that instead of providing supports, the Government is actually removing them. For example, grant aid is no longer available to forest owners who replant their lands after fire or storm damage. In 2012, the support available for the reconstitution of crops damaged by deer and frost was also removed. I would like the Minister of State to provide an update on any plans to reintroduce the relevant schemes. I am not stating that commitments were given but prior to the general election in 2011, reference was made to reintroducing some of the schemes which obtained in the past.

The new EU forestry strategy acknowledges the contribution of the forestry sector to rural development, growth and job creation. I am not sure but I understand that Ireland's total forest cover stands at 11%, which is one of the lowest levels in Europe. We need to do more to ensure that the economic, social, environmental and recreational benefits which can accrue from a vibrant forestry estate are recognised by compensating forest owners for the costs relating to forestry establishment and for the income they forego while their timber crops are maturing. We should consider the economic impact of the forestry sectors in countries such as Norway and Denmark and also the social, environmental and recreational benefits to which they have given rise. These countries are way ahead of Ireland in this matter. It is difficult to believe that our total forest cover stands at 11%. This figure has not changed for approximately 20 years. That is dreadful, particularly when one considers the amount of forestry land which could be made available to the State.

The taxation restrictions introduced in the Finance Act 2006 do not recognise the unique nature of growing forests, which only realise the full revenue at the end of a growth cycle. Such a cycle is commonly in the region of 40 years but it stretch to 50, 60 or 70 years. This issue must be addressed, particularly because it represents a considerable threat in the context of developing the industry. The latter is, of course, what we need to do in the coming years. The current number of logs harvested annually in Irish forests is not sufficient to meet demand from the processing sector. Logs continue to be imported, which is ridiculous.

People in forestry are aghast, shocked and taken aback that we have the potential to create extra employment and to develop the industry and yet shiploads of logs are imported into the country. That is criminal.

Demand continues to outstrip supply and this position will worsen as an increasing volume of timber residue and small logs will be required for the rapidly expanding wood industry sector. I know the Minister will do his best but if we look at the forestry sector and the current economic crisis, there is potential to create employment in and to develop recreational use. That can help the economy.

If we look at Norway, Sweden and Denmark, the number of people employed in the forestry sector in those countries has increased dramatically over a number of years but the number employed here appears to have stagnated and the figure of 11% has gone nowhere over the past 20 years. People in the industry in Europe find it quite shocking when they see the potential Ireland has. Forest owners here have set up committees and they meet people from Norway, Denmark, Sweden and other countries. They come back here astounded and shocked when they see the government input in those countries compared to that here. A small amount of investment in relative terms would help the economy over a long period of time. We are talking about 20 to 40 years but is that not what it is all about? It is about our children's children and everything we can do to sustain and grow the economy. This is where we are losing badly.

I keep harking back to this but I found it astounding when I was given the figure of 11% some years ago. In my constituency, if one leaves Waterford, one sees thousands of acres of forests extending to Clonmel, Carrick-on-Suir and elsewhere and the potential there for employment, recreational use and so on. I remember driving through those forests as a child but 30 or 40 years later, nothing has changed. We have not attempted to develop or create economic value from these forests, which is astounding. This is not a criticism of this Government.

I am disappointed we have not set out a strategy in the Bill for long-term development so that we can project how much money can be made over a period of 30 to 40 years and how jobs can be created. Strategies put forward in other countries, such as Norway, project 20 to 30 years ahead. They are now able to project how forestry will affect their economies and job creation in 20 to 30 years' time. It also affects the national debt because they will create or lose jobs and make money for the economy.

It looks as if I will vote against this Bill but I will speak to people today and tomorrow. I am very disappointed we have not made any economic projections. Many people working in the forestry industry will also be disappointed that much of what has happened here over the past 20 to 30 years will not change as a result of this Bill.

See this speech in context