Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I would like to follow up on some issues raised in previous contributions about the operation of Coillte and use my time to focus on the underlying issue of our State approach to forestry over the past few decades and on the legislation that we have in place, which supports it and which has formed Coillte. We know that forestry can be a viable and important commercial sector but we also now know that our forests are a vital source of climate mitigation for this country. Any State or semi-State body that fails to operate on that basis is failing the people by placing profit ahead of survival and corporate interests ahead of nation-building. In 2021, influenced strongly by a global supply and demand imbalance that created a series of supply challenges in key markets, Coillte published record profits. Unfortunately, I sit on the Committee of Public Accounts but cannot look at those profits because the Committee of Public Accounts does not get to talk to Coillte. We do not really have any serious budgetary oversight of the operations of Coillte. There is little Dáil oversight of the decisions made by Coillte. Pre-tax earnings increased significantly on the previous year to €159 million and it recorded operating cash of €73 million. Its revenue earned in 2021 was €422 million, up from €285 million in 2020. These are huge numbers.

However, Coillte as a body for forestry in this country is a failure. It is no longer fit for purpose and should be wound down or fundamentally reformed. The problem we have is this. The deal with Gresham House in fact fulfils the terms of reference in the legislation for Coillte. It is a deal based on profit above all other concerns. The legislation for Coillte sets out the following parameters for its operation: to carry on the business of forestry and related activities on a commercial basis and in accordance with efficient silvicultural practices; to establish and carry on woodland industries; to participate with others in forestry and related activities consistent with its objects, designed to enhance the effective and profitable operation of the company; and to utilise and manage the resources available to it in a manner consistent with the above objectives. The language includes "a commercial basis", "woodland industries", and "profitable operation".

In considering the deal made between Coillte and Gresham House announced this month I have had cause to review the approaches of other countries in the development of their own forestry sectors. That was an eye-opening experience. There are very few comparable examples of bodies such as Coillte in other countries, whether within or outside the EU. I found it difficult to locate any country that constrained its forestry work to purely commercial matters in legislation. In fact, I was not able to find any where there was no accompanying body that simply looked at public good. It was difficult to find any example of a deal similar to this with so little oversight from the political body in question and so little buy-in from the public. However, there were quite a few comparative similarities between the jurisdictions I looked at. Most EU countries and regions where forestry is successful and growing, both as a commercial sector and as part of their climate strategies, have many things in common. That includes both states within the EU and places such as Canada. They have broadly aligned approaches. It is worth outlining what those approaches tend to be.

They tend to identify that a nation’s forests, whether those that exist now or those that are planned for, are a key natural resource. They tend to identify that natural resources are a public good and the public, where possible, should retain ownership of them. They identify that the forestry sector is inextricable from our climate commitments and therefore environment and biodiversity considerations must be part of all decision-making, whether about finance, biodiversity or land management. They identify that almost all the forestry bodies, at least which I looked at, took a regional approach. For example, Canada took a federalised approach and then broke that down within its federal limits. One can look at smaller countries such as Slovenia and other places in the EU that have strong local government that has a significant impact on decision-making on forestry. It is not a centralised system or a body that lives in the capital city and decides on matters. It is developed with local people, local communities and local authorities, and is overseen by them.

I do not think anyone in this debate is proposing that commercial forestry, where it is developed and led by sustainable practices such as continuous cover and native planting, should be excluded from our State objectives. To the contrary, as somebody coming from the construction sector, the supply of a renewable building material could only be in Ireland's interests as we currently underutilise timber in the Irish construction sector. However, Coillte's narrow focus on commercial benefit and indeed the legislative underpinning for Coillte does not meet with the climate or commercial demands of the 21st century. As I said, Coillte is doing what it says on the tin. It is operating for profit.

It is imperative that Coillte is removed or reformed to align with the principles of climate neutrality and, while we recognise the importance of natural capital, that we do not seek to reduce investment in our nation's forests as an exercise in accounting. Forestry can and will provide significant income to the State through timber production but it is also a pillar element in the fight to improve biodiversity, a means of capturing carbon, a space for health and well-being and a vital habitat for our wildlife. Forests are vital for the future of our planet. They improve the health and well-being of everyone. With careful planning and expert management, our forests can and will continue to thrive and be a significant amount of our landmass. It is imperative that we listen to the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss and implement its recommendation that we consider the position of Coillte. I ask the Minister to consider unpicking the Gresham House deal by dissolving Coillte as a matter of urgency. If it is less than 1% of our land, then we do not need this deal and it is not significant.

See this speech in context