Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome any proposals aimed at increasing native tree-planting and encouraging smaller levels of afforestation among those who may not be willing or able, in the current climate, to take a leap towards greater levels of planting. Even so, the manner in which this proposal has been brought forward so late in the day, as an amendment to legislation that will ban fur-farming, is a matter of great concern. It is symptomatic of the manner in which forestry policy is dealt with in this State. It is not good legislative practice and it is not the type of approach Sinn Féin believes is conducive to the development of good legislation. We in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine received a draft copy of the proposal on Friday and today received a briefing from officials, which was welcome, and we will debate Committee Stage in the House at a later point.

One forester has been quoted as giving the assessment that this is another hospital pass from the forest service of the Department to the forestry industry in a decade-long litany of hospital passes, which has left this once-great indigenous rural-based industry in tatters. That rings true when we read the briefing note that was circulated with the motion. It refers to the climate action plan's aim for afforestation of 8,000 ha per year until 2030 as being ambitious when compared with the recent afforestation rate. It is important to acknowledge, however, that the climate action plan does not outline a target of 8,000 ha of afforestation. In fact, it does not make any reference to a target. In the annex to the plan published yesterday, again that target is not referenced. As for the target of 8,000 ha per year being described as incredibly ambitious, it might be ambitious when compared with the catastrophe we are currently dealing with but it is nowhere near the level of ambition we would want.

When we compare ourselves with some of our neighbours, we can safely say the target is not ambitious at all. Two years on from its Mackinnon report, Scotland had reached its pre-crisis levels of afforestation, whereas two years on from our Mackinnon report, almost to the day, this State's afforestation rates have not doubled but halved. Ten years on from its Mackinnon report, Scotland is targeting 15,000 ha, almost double the pre-collapse level, while ten years on from our report, we will be targeting only the level that was planted prior to afforestation. Rather than putting in place the mechanisms and measures that will see an ambitious afforestation programme and targets met, we are tinkering at the edges to bring in a pile of smaller holdings to try to mitigate the bad look of what can only be described as a record failure.

The briefing note that was provided on this amendment refers also to Project Woodland examining a number of work streams, and here lies the crux of the issue. The Mackinnon report did not call for a body to be established to examine the findings of an implementation report based on the initial report.

It called for actions to be taken but, as we have seen time and again, the can is kicked down the road as one report is followed by another. Some of the work streams that were described will not report until the middle of next year at the earliest. By the time there is action, it will have taken the Government at least three years to implement a report the implementation of which was supposed to be measured in months.

Supports for native broadleaf planting certainly are to be welcomed. However, if this is the Government's big idea, it amounts to a hospital pass and will have little meaning for much of the forestry sector Currently, the greatest obstacle to afforestation in the State is the licensing backlog within the Department's forestry unit. With a current target of 100 licences per week, the Department is, in effect, surrendering to the fact it has no intention of clearing that backlog by the end of next year. The annexe to the climate action plan references increasing the output of forestry licences by quarter 4 of 2020 to meet demand. Will the Minister indicate the target output per week for next year? Is it intended to meet the target under the spring legislative agenda that will be brought forward in a few weeks? Will the Government begin work on legislation to provide applicants for forestry licences a statutory period in which they can expect a decision? If the backlog is to be cleared by 2022, there is no longer any excuse for not providing such a measure. There is no reason the Department should fail to begin preparing such legislation without delay.

As I mentioned at the outset, what is happening with the bringing forward of this motion is far too symptomatic of the general approach. Last year, we had emergency legislation on the appeals process in respect of which all parties in this House and the Oireachtas committee waived their right to engage in pre-legislative scrutiny. It is all too familiar that we are now dealing with an amendment to legislation that has no relation to forestry. I hope the Minister will acknowledge in his closing remarks that this is not the best way of doing business. There is too much latitude being given to him that he has not earned in terms of the trust of this House. In respect of the schemes, I ask that we not be left to wake up on a Wednesday in the new year to read about them in the Irish Farmers' Journalbefore receiving telephone calls from constituents asking how they meet their needs. That is the playbook the Department follows all the time. It leaks selectively about schemes but it does not engage with Members unless and until it is essential, namely, when it wants to bring forward legislation within a short timeframe. Our support is then sought and is given to allow the measures to go forward.

We need a partnership process. We need the forestry sector to be central to that and we need environmental groups and communities to be part of all the dialogue that takes place. We must have an increased volume of tree planting, including of native broadleaf trees, across the State. Any measures to deliver that end certainly are welcome but it is time to leave the disingenuousness and play-acting to one side and get real about this. I hope this is the last time we see this type of stunt being pulled. We do not need any more last-minute measures. We must have a long-term strategic plan that delivers on afforestation.

See this speech in context