Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome aspects of this Bill, which will be judged on the basis of whether it inhibits people from entering the forestry industry. A report published by the Irish Farmers' Association raised concerns in this regard. I also welcome the decision to remove from the Government's agenda - hopefully permanently - the proposal to sell off Coillte forests. An IMPACT commissioned report by Dr. Peter Bacon concluded that the sale of Coillte forests would have been a massive financial error and would have generated major losses for the State. It would also have had implications for the amenity aspects of forestry.

My constituency of Dublin South-West takes in part of the Dublin mountains, which are a popular location for leisure activities. Given that the Dublin and Wicklow mountains are close to the edge of the capital, one frequently hears about anti-social activity in the area, for example, thefts from cars belonging to visitors and walkers. While the Bill does not address that issue, we should take action to deal with this wider societal problem.

We must also encourage more people to use our forest amenities. Public access to Coillte lands was a major concern for those who opposed plans to sell off our forests. Given the problem of obesity and other health problems, it is important to make forests more accessible and open for people who wish to engage in activities such as walking. We need to encourage the view that forests are part of our heritage, rather than something on the margins. If we get young people involved through scouting and youth groups, we will instil a greater appreciation of the environment and so forth.

It is difficult to obtain information about Coillte. One report indicated the sale of the company could generate €1.3 billion. Public representatives do not have an opportunity to query decisions made by Coillte. While it is nominally a private company, the primary shareholders are the Minister for Finance and, I understand, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It would assist our understanding of forestry if the activities of Coillte became more transparent and public representatives were given an opportunity to discuss decisions taken by the company as well as their impact on farmers, private forestry owners and local communities.

Access to privately owned forestry does not come within the remit of the Bill, other than the introduction of an obligation on private forestry owners to ensure forests are properly looked after. Forestry owners will also be required to obtain a licence to thin out scrub and so on. This suggests an assumption on the part of the Department that private forestry owners will destroy forests. I do not believe that will happen. Farmers who remove weeds on their farms will not destroy their farms. This provision is over the top and needs to be addressed on Committee Stage. As the IFA has noted, it may inhibit people from entering the forestry sector.

I know a number of forest owners and remember visiting the forest of a late friend whose family had owned the forest for generations and who were very proud of its history. He spoke of officials and political representatives who produced great ideas but did not understand what was involved in maintaining and harvesting a forest. I get the sense from the legislation that while it may look good on paper, it may not be possible to roll it out. This issue needs to be addressed.

More defined regulation is needed with regard to access to forestry for members of the public. In my local authority, we discussed motions about access to land. This issue is a minefield and one would need to be Solomon to decide who was right or wrong in many cases because both sides of the argument had merit. Although this issue has been parked, it will need to be addressed at some stage.

I recall discussions on the Wicklow Way, which created difficulties as responsibility cut across South Dublin County Council and other local authorities. I remember the publication of a grand plan, route maps and so forth. Local farmers argued that they were not involved in the process and had been taken for granted. Common sense is required in this regard. I accept, however, that the Wicklow Way has developed into a fantastic amenity.

Recently, anti-social behaviour at Bohernabreena waterworks resulted in some official or other deciding to close public access to the facility. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people use this amenity at weekends in the summer. Perhaps its popularity was the problem but it was closed despite only a handful of visitors engaging in anti-social behaviour. One could argue that this step was necessary because of the water treatment works. The decision also impacted on access to the Wicklow Way, however. I heard, for example, that two Japanese tourists who inadvertently entered the Bohernabreena site were told they would be fined if they did not leave immediately. This was hardly an example of Ireland of the welcomes.

I was subsequently told they genuinely did not know the area was sealed off. There was uproar involving fishermen. Two Dodder anglers and another angling company had access to it and were paying rent. They were denied access to it. There are huge difficulties with public access.

Ten years ago Dr. Peter Bacon analysed the sale of our forests and referred to the overall place of the forestry sector in the economy. Unfortunately some would argue little has been done since to develop the potential of the sector. Across all parties and none in this House, there would be the view that it has huge potential. Other speakers talked about the potential for jobs, but there is also the potential of getting people out of the city into forestry areas.

There are difficulties with replanting our forestry. Many in the House would favour more afforestation, planting trees, improving the environment, biodiversity and so on. However, part of the difficulty is that although people sign up to planting their own trees, no one knows where the trees are. So there is a need to involve people. If it was opened up to the public, youth clubs and scouting organisations, it could be a way to get people back to work, training and so on. Those elements do not seem to come together. There is huge potential in that regard. We talk about upskilling people and so on, but we know how many people are working in this area in other countries.

Dr. Bacon concluded on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis that public investment in forestry compared favourably with State investment in other sectors. He emphasised the need for strong co-ordination between the public and private sectors in forestry. The potential for forestry is evident if we look at what is happening in other countries. In Switzerland almost 100,000 people are employed in forestry or in related industries such as paper production. The forest area in Switzerland is twice that of this State, but the overall sector employs almost ten times the number of people employed here. There is clear potential for expansion.

Clondalkin and other areas traditionally had their paper mills and so on. Much of the potential for recycling paper has been moved outside the country. If we are talking about joined-up government, we need to put in supports to keep those types of industries in the country. We need to become much more independent and not reliant on sending our waste materials outside the country.

I spoke about Coillte doing its own thing without being accountable to public scrutiny. If it is worth €1.3 billion and if we are serious about public accountability, we need to come up with some mechanism for scrutiny into decisions made in that company. Some newspapers referred to links with former politicians. We need considerably more transparency which would be helpful for the company. We need to give people the opportunity to look at decisions that are made. We need to give the company an opportunity to explain some of its decisions. It may require people coming together to discuss areas such as diversity and making some of our forests more environmentally friendly.

Contrasting the Bacon report with the fact that the State was seriously considering selling off public forests probably says all that needs to be said about how successive governments and Coillte have treated the sector. I presume the Government will now claim it has made a decision on the matter. However, given the financial pressure on us, there will always be the potential for it to be sold off, but I see it as a resource. It is not healthy for people to have to rely on some media interest on what happening with our forests and it needs greater attention.

Now that privatisation is supposedly off the agenda, we need to look again at the Bacon report and frame a proactive policy to use the public forests properly in co-operation with private forest owners and related enterprises. The Bacon report also referred to the amenity value of the forests and I touched on that at the start. There are varying estimates of the economic value these bring. It is an area capable of greater development and expansion. We can also learn from other countries that are much more advanced in this area. There would be genuine cross-party support for initiatives in this area - I do not believe people would adopt party-political lines on it. There is so much good will for us to tap into. We should use the collective ideas of the House to move things forward.

The Bill is important in setting out the regulatory framework for private forests. I hope a proper balance will be struck to assist the future development of the forestry sector based on co-operation between the public and private sectors. My biggest concern would be over the nanny state and overregulation. Whether forestry is public or private we need to make people much more aware of the resource we have. We need to encourage more people to invest in forestry. Every day we talk about the potential to create jobs and people say the State cannot do that. This is one area where the State under supposedly a private company could create a huge number of jobs. If Switzerland can employ ten times the number we employ in this area, there is huge potential.

We need to look at the diversity of the forests. If we are talking in terms of private forestry, our policies should encourage private individuals and forests to grow oak trees and those trees that are more environmentally friendly than trees such as firs. That is an area in which we as legislators can make major changes.

See this speech in context