Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will start with forestry. The Minister referred to the forestry programme. I was listening carefully to him and think he was about to make some statement on the approvals process and the EU Commission process. He may have been interrupted or may have lost the flow and moved on to something else. The forestry programme is non-existent. The programme for Government target is 8,000 ha per annum. The benchmark for the programme for Government is whether it will reach 8,000 ha this year and next year. We cannot deny facts. The simple truth is the Government will not reach its afforestation targets this year. It will come nowhere near those targets.

11 o’clock

The forestry dashboard clearly shows that the number of licences issued this week was 78, and 40 of those were issued to Coillte. I do not have a sense as to what the landmass involved is, but the number is still too low. The private forestry companies are at the edge of the cliff because, from what I can see, there is still no certainty in that we have already missed one planting season and we are about to miss another. We still do not have sight as to what the forestry programme for the coming years will be. We have no certainty within the private side of the sector as to what the future will look like and, objectively speaking, one would have to say that the forestry sector is now in rag order.

If the motion is tied into the area of reducing nitrates, ultimately, and the idea that Ireland will play its part in reaching targets and that, arising from that, agriculture has a 25% target as a contribution to the overall 2030 target, without an afforestation programme we are at nothing. If we cannot hit even the 8,000 ha programme for Government target, and if we do not have a forestry programme, where is the potential to sequester carbon as part of that national effort?

Very often, as has been stated, we get stuck into binary arguments as to whether to cull or not to cull. I agree that is not where the conversation is per se. I take some solace in the fact that the new CAP scheme provides enough incentives for farmers to move towards land stewardship, but that then raises questions as to where the balance or the tipping point is between land stewardship and viability of the typical family farm. What I see in agriculture is an increasing consolidation of land. We see more and more commercial interests becoming involved in the sector now and we see a lot more feedlots. I worry that, while we are saying all these schemes such as the eco schemes will be developed, on the one hand there are the eco schemes and, on the other hand, there is what I would call increasing desertification of agricultural productivity, which is centred on a policy of massive feedlots. I am not sure that does anything to enhance biodiversity and I am not sure if it is fair on those farmers who actually want to sign up to those schemes when they see what is happening around the increasing commercialisation of agriculture, whereby it is now corporations that are moving into the market because they see where the opportunities are.

On the practicalities of those eco schemes that the Minister elucidated in his contribution, I wonder whether or not the component under the eco scheme that deals with the space for nature is ambitious enough. My understanding is that at least 7% of a farmer's holding must be devoted to biodiversity, habitats or landscape features, building on the 4% requirement for all farmers set out under good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, 8 as part of its conditionality. Where the farmer commits to at least 10%, that counts as two actions under the eco scheme. Could people be incentivised further, beyond that 10%, if we are really serious about restoration of biodiversity in a way that ensures that we can maintain the viability of the farm, that the payment comes inside the farm gate and that people feel they can switch over? They will have to reduce the burden in respect of beef, in particular, but it is a matter of allowing people to transition easily into those schemes and, where some farmers may want to go beyond the 10%, allowing that to happen.

I will go back to forestry because I have a minute and a half left to speak. It is a fallacy to say there are enough incentives for people to move into forestry at present because it is like any scheme, and most farmers farm to schemes. Why would a farmer move into forestry now when confidence has been shaken by, for instance, the lack of a scheme around ash dieback? The Minister will acknowledge - let us call a spade a spade - that we do not have an afforestation programme. Until such time as there is an afforestation programme and some facing up to the reality of the ash dieback scheme, how can any farmer or landowner who planted ash be expected to move into another afforestation scheme when they have been burned by the ash dieback scheme? As regards the creation by Coillte now of this entity that allows for land acquisition by private entities, my fear is that we will not recognise our own landscape in the future and that we will not be able to access the lands we could once freely roam because they will all be owned by private entities. I therefore urge the Minister to focus on forestry. That is vital.

See this speech in context