John Ellis (Fianna Fail)

Senator Bradford finished on a point I was going to make. I attended many public meetings — I am sure Senator O'Reilly was also called to many — on the problems caused by private afforestation companies backed by pension funds and other operations which did not need to make a commercial return. They forced a number of farmers out of business by being able to pay more for land for forestry because of the tax breaks available to them. This has had a major detrimental effect as far as certain parts of the west of Ireland are concerned. The land in question was not always marginal land as better plots of land were available and taken out by forestry companies.

The grant scheme was tiered so hardwood was at a higher rate than sitka spruce or pines. The net result of this is that 15 to 20 years ago every bit of reasonably good land in my part of the country was forced into afforestation. If one was not able to pay more than the private forestry companies one did not get the land. Rather than being able to expand one was put out of business because once forestry was introduced alongside one's farm one had problems with vermin and other problems associated with forestry. Nothing can be done about this now but I predict that within 20 years all of the trees will be pulled out because the land will have to return to food production. It is becoming marginal as to whether we will have trees or food to feed the people on the planet. This is already happening in some cases.

Forestry plays a major role in helping to improve the environment. At one level, it is important that carbon is removed. However, nobody ever mentions a major negative caused in the west by indiscriminate planting beside watercourses and rivers whch is that all of the fish were killed. Whether people want to admit it, when the needles fall and rot an acid is secreted and seepage of this into our watercourses has killed off fish in many smaller rivers. We all know this and we must accept it happened. I do not know whether it could have been avoided but it might have been if we had proper planning regulations and people were only allowed to plant deciduous, hardwood or non-coniferous trees within 20 m of watercourses.

Grant assistance is of great value to those who receive it. However, as first thinnings are taken out after 20 years the first crop of any farmer who plants and maintains forestry is yielded after 15 to 20 years. After this, no income is received until the next thinnings. It is not a viable prospect for any farmer, although it is a viable prospect for investors or insurance companies. It is being peddled as a farm crop and it should be explained that the first thinnings will be after 20 years and the only income after this will be made from timber sales. People under 50 years of age see this as a cash cow for 20 years, forgetting their life expectancy can be up to 80 years and they will have ten years of no return.

Senator Bradford mentioned wood pellets. Many people discovered recently that at one stage this was a monopoly market and supplies were tight. The costs rose significantly from what was originally predicted 18 months or two years ago. While it is market-driven, it should be examined.

Problems with clear felling are arising now with regard to what was planted 20 or 25 years ago. Clear felling of land leaves scars on our landscape and should be dealt with. Tree-felling licences should be issued on the understanding that clear felling should not occur within 15 m or 20 m of roadways. Timber should be left to allow a new forest to build up or to be replanted. It should also be mandatory that tree felling licences be issued with the condition that replanting should be done within one year. Areas have been left for years before they were replanted. This is probably because grant assistance is not available to replant land which has been clear felled. I do not know what the departmental officials will state about this. Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify the matter in her reply.

Lack of maintenance of forests frightens us all. Once the fences went up and the gates were locked much of the land which was planted was forgotten about. A great deal of private forestry has been badly maintained. The net result of this is that only a fraction of a potentially decent crop is produced and this is wrong.

It is also wrong that people are paid grants without a proper annual inspection system. A farmer receiving a single payment grant can have two, three, four or five inspections per year depending on how it falls. One can have an inspection for the new suckler payment, for REPS, an area-based inspection and an entire stock check. Forestry is planted and cleared, checked over for the first year or two and after that the grant is paid without question. I could show officials sites which could be described only as scrub. Furze took over before trees got established. It is now the case of an odd tree coming up through the furze but the landowner is still paid the grant aid, which is wrong.

Proper provision must be made to ensure roads are not damaged during clear-felling. Leitrim County Council is always seeking moneys from the Department and elsewhere to cover damage done to roads by tree-felling operations. This also leads to communities becoming agitated and not wanting more plantations.

I note in the Minister of State's projections the proposed figures are dropping. They will drop more despite her best efforts because people have copped on that while it may be attractive at the start, forestry plantations after 20 years leave nothing else but timber sales. They may be tax free, suit pension funds and those with a considerable income other than from farming. A farmer, however, getting into forestry planting will not see the returns down the line for which he would have hoped.

The Minister of State claims the average value of thinnings, the first crop between 15 years and 20 years, works out at €150 and €200 per acre. That is the total income other than grants for the first 20 years. I accept every five years, a certain amount can be removed from a plantation and the final clear-fell could be between €12,000 and €15,000 per hectare. However, having to wait for 40 years to reach the final clear-fell and taking in other factors such as felling costs, what one receives for the timber and an unreliable market means one is entering into an uncertain business. It is a tempting prospect for certain age groups. It is the way to go for those who are 65 years. A 45 year old farmer will see a reasonable income for 20 years. However, when he reaches 65 his concern will be his pension. He will not get any pension from the farm. If he had maintained it even as a farm, the leasing value would be much higher than the forestry income after 20 years.

The implications of forest plantations should be fully explained to those wishing to get involved. Forestry is needed from an environmental point of view but it is a two-edged sword. There is the environmental and structural damage from clear-felling. There is also the question whether the cost-benefit analysis will show it is worth it for the farmer in the long term. Those with marginal agricultural land should be encouraged to plant. It is not the best option for those with less marginal land, on the knife edge so to speak. I do not understand why Coillte leaves large tracts of clear-felled land unplanted, leaving the countryside scarred.