Pippa Hackett (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Kenny for the opening address on his Bill. I concur with many of the comments he made, many of which relate to broader forestry issues and are probably beyond the scope of the Bill. However, I thank him for them.

It is only a short while since we were in this Chamber debating the Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020, which sought to align some aspects of the forestry licensing process with the planning process. As mentioned then, I and this Government are ambitious for Irish forestry. It can continue to deliver multifunctional benefits for our society, the rural economy and our environment. That will be key to delivering on many of the Government strategies and also on programme for Government commitments in this area. If that is to be achieved it will have to be underpinned by an appropriate regulatory regime.

I want to emphasise that I fully support a robust forestry licensing system. As we as a society balance our need to plant, build roads and fell trees we must protect our landscape and our shared environment. However, that does not mean we should have two parallel consent processes for the same development, which is what this Bill is proposing. If there were some obvious deficiencies in the current consent procedures for forestry licensing applications greater than 5 ha I would be the first to address them. I have seen what is currently involved in receiving approval and obtaining a licence. It is a comprehensive and rigorous process. Some would say it is too rigorous. I do not agree with that and I am glad we have a consent process that demands stringent assessments of forest licensing applications.

I will briefly reflect on what is involved. All applications to build a forestry road or plant a woodland must be completed by professional foresters. These applications must comply with detailed scheme conditions and requirements and they must be accompanied by maps and supporting documentation. Scheme conditions for afforestation have evolved over the years. Many of the concerns addressed by Deputy Kenny are reflective of previous policy. The commonly held view that planting does not take any account of landscape or the need for diversity in planting no longer holds true. All new planting must have up to 15% of open space and a minimum of 15% broadleaves. I believe we planted more broadleaves this year than ever before. That is a radical change from the legacy planting which is familiar to many people across the country and in Deputy Kenny's constituency in particular. These new conditions will make for more amenable woodlands into the future.

As everyone in the House is aware, the possible impact of forestry projects, or any development, on sensitive European sites must be carefully judged. In the past 18 months, the Department has developed and introduced a suite of robust appropriate assessment procedures. This needed to be done. We have a well-resourced ecology unit within the Department to deal with appropriate assessment cases.

As we look to the possible impacts on European sites we look to archaeological impacts also as we must protect our unique archaeological heritage. In cases where a site is more than 50 ha an environmental impact assessment, EIA, is mandatory. In cases where a site is less than 50 ha the Department will carry out a sub-threshold screening for an EIA. If we were to ask for planning permission, what would that add to the process?

The reason my Department is the competent authority is precisely because it has the expertise to adjudicate on what is a unique development, and forestry is considered a development. We have had to change the way we do things to respond to European Court of Justice judgments and we have shown a willingness and an ability to do so. Jim Mackinnon, who carefully reviewed our approval process, said that one clear strength of Ireland's approval system is that we use qualified foresters to assess licence applications. He pointed out that this is not always the case in other jurisdictions and that a lack of that silviculture knowledge can lead to problems, something we do not have here, thankfully.

In response to Deputy Kenny's proposals I must point out that forestry in this country is treated as a development and regulated in that fashion. It is a consented activity and much more regularly assessed than crops such as horticulture, for example. I believe that adding a second planning authority on top of the work of my Department would not add any benefit other than additional cost to and a regulatory burden on farmers and other applicants.

It is important to note also that the decisions on licences are not taken in isolation. The Department's spatial systems identify projects that need to be referred to prescribed bodies. These include inland fisheries, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, An Taisce and the local authorities, which are widely consulted in many forestry applications. We also refer cases, as appropriate, to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, for its views. I am pleased that local authorities have a direct influence on individual applications and I support that.

The views of the public also play a crucial role in any consent system which may impact the environment. The Aarhus Convention protects the public's right to access information on environmental matters. This allows them to have their say in decision making. The forestry licensing system respects that right. Every forestry development, no matter how small, even one as small as 0.1 of a hectare, is open to public consultation. The neighbour next door is able to send in a submission to the Department outlining any concerns he or she may have. That also applies to environmental groups or any other interested party. Ireland has the strongest public participation in forestry decision making in Europe.

Deputies will be aware that I recently introduced the Forestry (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to this House. I am pleased to say that it has been commenced and regulations to give effect to its provisions have been introduced. The main purpose of the Act was to improve the functioning of the Forestry Appeals Committee. I remind Deputies that any interested parties may appeal a decision of the Department to the Forestry Appeals Committee. The committee is entirely independent of the Minister in terms of deciding upon individual appeals cases. Again, it seems that there would be little sense in having two such appeals bodies, which would be An Bord Pleanála, should we have a planning approach to it, deciding on the same or similar matters, which is what the proposal in this Bill outlines.

One clear message I am getting is that most people want immediate improvements to the appeals process and quicker turnaround times. It is well known that we have faced challenges in issuing licences and that the Forestry Appeals Committee had a backlog of appeals. We have taken steps to address both of those delays. It would be a great shame if an unnecessary extra level of bureaucracy was now introduced, which undoubtedly would frustrate the process.

Let us consider what is at stake here. There are ambitious programme for Government commitments on forestry. I am committed to making all efforts necessary to deliver on those commitments. To do so we must have a responsible and responsive consent system. The delivery of more than 8,000 ha of new planting and the construction of 125 km of forest roads per year, as set out in the Climate Action Plan 2019, is challenging enough. Putting further barriers in that path for no discernible added value is at the very least undesirable in the current climate.

No one can be immune to the effect of the current delays on the forestry sector, particularly on sawmills. This is an industry which provides jobs and supports rural economies at a time when the economy is under pressure. All of us use the wood products produced as a result. As I mentioned, we are working hard to improve that situation, deliver quicker approvals and improve the appeals system. That is why we cannot afford to support a Bill which in all likelihood would negatively impact on the delivery of licences for no discernible benefit.

The proposals being put forward today would be a disincentive to potential applicants. There would be an increased level of complexity in dealing with the two consent authorities and additional costs would be incurred in paying for submission fees and, potentially, appeal fees. Appellants would be affected as well because they would not know which of the consent authorities to apply to, and might even have to apply to both. This would again involve additional costs for those who wish to take part in a consultative process.

I have heard nothing from the proposer addressing the likely impact on local authority planning departments if this Bill were passed. Those departments would face significant additional cost and resource burdens and there would be a duplication with the resources necessary in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to issue licences. It is estimated that between 1,000 and 2,000 extra planning permission applications per year would go through local authorities. This goes way beyond forestry issues and could displace other urgent development applications. Has any consideration been given to the impact this could have on citizens who await other decisions from local authority planning departments?

I confirm that the Government opposes this Bill on the grounds that it brings no added value to the forestry licensing system. On the contrary, I believe it would add cost, complexity and further delays to an already overburdened process.

See this speech in context