Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am happy to take part in this important debate about the future of forestry in Ireland and to examine the rationale of the Government's current policy. Ecology and biology have long been used in the lexicon of forestry language and we can now add a new word, “codology”, because that is the best description of the recent activity announced by Coillte, a State-supported company which, despite its annual profits, could not muster financial expertise other than to go to Bond Street and Threadneedle Street to find UK partners to figure out how to add capacity to its operations.

The domestic forestry sector has been in crisis for a number of years and that is down to just one reason, which is the inefficiency of the forestry office to process applications. Where farmers have had land suitable for forestry, the delays have meant they have diverted into other streams. This point is best highlighted by looking at the historical activity of the domestic forestry sector. In 2000, private domestic growing delivered over 14,000 ha, in 2010, it delivered over 8,000 ha and in the middle of Covid, in 2020, it still delivered 4,000 ha, which is half of our annual 8,000 ha target. However, the message coming from Government is that the domestic activity cannot deliver the afforestation targets we need to meet the climate goals.

Helping this narrative is the deliberate prioritisation by the forestry office in terms of putting State-supported activity ahead of the private growers in Ireland. In 2022, Coillte achieved 110% of its felling target, which I am sure it was delighted about, whereas, on the other hand, private felling achieved only 80% of its felling licences and just 68% of its afforestation licences. The continuing failure to provide an efficient licensing regime to the sector is at the heart of the rationale for Coillte to go looking for foreign moneys and for partners capable of achieving subsidy and premium approvals. The Gresham House deal initially was to develop 12,000 ha of Irish forestry over the life of the programme, and this would deliver hundreds of millions in State subsidies to that concern. These moneys will not be transferred to Irish families; rather, they will go to international investors. In addition, given the pushback in recent days from Deputies in this House, Coillte is now saying it will focus on acquiring over 9,500 ha of existing forestry, along with a target of 3,500 ha of afforestation. In other words, two thirds of the fund will now go to acquire lands already forested, delivering nothing in increased climate change target benefits to Ireland.

What of Coillte’s responsibility to deliver biodiversity in its afforestation activities? Will it be forced, like the private sector, to provide 20% broadleaf on schemes and 15% open area, or will it, as it does in Leitrim, plant 100% Sitka spruce and then come down to Wicklow and plant 20% broadleaf as part of those schemes? The failure to address the dieback issue is at the heart of the difficulties for farmers getting into the new forestry programme. The Minister has to try to sort out a new scheme. I know that is stopped because it is waiting for approval, but surely the Department can find a way.

I am well aware of our need to protect biodiversity and to achieve our climate targets in the forestry sector but I, like others in this House, am fundamentally opposed to the creation of State monopolies, which, the way the present policy is going, is what will propel Coillte. I am also fundamentally opposed to the idea of using Irish taxpayers’ money to incentivise foreign investment interests to enter the Irish forestry market and displace rural and regional farm ownership and farm families. Forestry growers want and need a functioning licensing department that deals with their applications quickly and allows them to enter the forestry programme. The Government’s focus must return to incentivising the perpetuation of our rural and regional economies and it should stop aping other systems, using foreign capital as an excuse to reduce Irish farm capital and to brainwash further and pressure our rural communities to migrate to other settlements. Our Irish lands must be kept in Irish ownership as that is the only guarantee that they will be available to future generations.

See this speech in context