Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 10, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

“8. (1) The Minister should establish a working group based on the Forestry Liaison Group, with balanced representation for the social, environmental and economic stakeholders.

(2) The working group may create sub-groups to issue advice on specific areas when required in consultation with the Minister.

(3) The working group should have input in setting of agendas and work.

(4) The working group should act as a link between international and national forest policies.

(5) The terms of reference of the working group should be set by the stakeholders and be guided by the Rio Forest Principles.”.

This moves from the general case that I have been putting for sustainable forest management and adequate public consultation to the specific, as it were. To ensure we have a sustainable approach to forest management and to ensure as part of a sustainable approach that we have a comprehensive, broad, balanced, democratic attitude and approach, the forest liaison group as it is currently constituted, which advises the Government on these matters, should be required to have a balance in terms of the social and environmental pillars, as it were, as well as maybe those connected more to the industry, farming and so on, which are also very important parts of all this. We could probably add in mountaineering groups and walking groups. We need a real balance.

The Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong in this. As I understand it, there is one environmental representative on the forest liaison group and it is much more industry focused. My amendment would make it a requirement whereas what the Minister of State proposes provides that the Minister basically should have the discretion to decide what experts he or she might want on this committee. I do not think that is good enough. It should not be a matter of discretion whether we have sustainable forest management. It should not be the right of any future Minister to skew forest management, which is such an important resource, in a particular direction if it threatens the integrity of this important resource. That is the logic.

My amendment again refers to the Rio principles. The Minister of State has made the point that sustainable forest management is an evolving concept, which is fair enough. However, the Rio declaration is very comprehensive and allows for that flexibility. It sets out broad principles and parameters, which represent the highest expression of how we should do it right. It takes in all the aspects, including cultural, environmental, tourist and economic value. I want that approach hardwired into the structures which will work with the Government, if one likes, in terms of managing our forests in a sustainable way. I do not see why the Minister of State would not accept that.

The Minister of State's amendment states there should be "an appropriate balance between members who are men and who are women". That is an interesting inclusion and a good one. He is happy to be specific on that balance. Should he not be equally happy to be specific on the other balances? It is absolutely right to specify that gender balance, but he has not included the other social, economic and environmental balances, which are equally important.

At the risk of labouring a point we have discussed at length, I believe it is just a recent example of it. We could also talk about the refinery in north Mayo and the major conflict that caused. Coillte lands were used in a way that caused huge division in the community and certainly the community would maintain there was not adequate consultation with it about what was done. Equally in the more recent example of Gougane Barra, the Minister of State did not outline the consultation process.

The Minister of State has justified it on the basis of urgency because of the spread of the disease.

I am not an expert in this regard but the first indication of disease in Gougane Barra was in July 2013 and the announcement that 16,000 trees would be cut down was made in January. Why were the intervening six months not used for public consultation? That was plenty of time for a comprehensive public consultation to consider the entire issue. Subsequently, it was discovered that it was not just larch that was cut down, as other species were also felled. I acknowledge I do not know but I received a letter from someone who claims to be knowledgeable in this area, which showed pictures of diseased trees where the disease was active and live and those trees were completely decrepit. This person also sent me photographs of the trees that were felled in Gougane Barra, which clearly were not affected by the disease. Questions have been raised and while I do not know whether these suspicions are justified, one way in which this suspicion - or massive conflict and controversy as seen in north County Mayo - can be overcome is to have public consultation. I simply do not accept that one cannot have genuine public consultation without causing unnecessary delays, as to have a proper public consultation is not really about time but is about will. Six months was plenty of time in which to have public consultation but it simply did not happen. Moreover, this concerned a national park of huge importance and perhaps is symptomatic of a problem in respect of decisions that are made.

That is the case for this amendment, which proposes that this working group should be balanced, should be informed by principles of sustainable forest management and that the Minister should not simply be allowed to do what he or she wants. It is a reasonable proposal, which I hope the Minister of State will accept, and I intend to press this amendment.

See this speech in context