Mary Wallace (Meath East, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senators for their contributions. The use of statements by the Upper House of the Oireachtas provides an opportunity to outline the contribution of forestry and the reasons it is vital to sustain the industry in the future by encouraging new planting now. All Senators outlined the importance of forestry and the new planting story. Some made suggestions on what we should do. If I had addressed this House three years ago, I could have pointed out that one of the key things people were saying at that time was that much of the land that was not available for food production, such as mountain land, was planted and that the next step was to make it attractive for the farmers in the rural environment protection scheme by including forestry on the REPS land. Many speakers, particularly Senator Carty, referred to the changes in the REPS. Last year we announced FEPS as a pilot scheme and it made a huge difference in encouraging REPS farmers to get involved in forestry. One of the key messages that should be conveyed from this debate is the value to the farmer of planting forestry, especially the REPS farmer.

Initially, the farmer or landowner could calculate that the cost of planting was 100% covered and that there was a premium of €550 or €570 per hectare for 20 years. However, that was competing with the REPS payments for environmental farming. That is the reason we introduced the FEPS pilot scheme last year and rolled it out this year. The extra €200 top-up is what makes it really attractive for REPS farmers in 2008 to consider new planting. I had the pleasure this week of visiting a farm in County Meath. The farmer is going into forestry for the first time. This farmer was involved in cattle and sheep farming as well as holding down a part-time job. He was having difficulty maintaining his farm. He has decided to plant 50% of his farm and the key advantage for him is that he will keep his single farm payment and get the additional money from forestry.

Senator Ellis made an important point about the income flow through the years from forestry. In the case of the farmer I mentioned, for the next 20 years he will receive the original planting grant, the forestry premium and FEPS for five years as tax-free income in addition to his single farm payment. Furthermore, the farmer does not just thin on the fifteenth year but can thin every five years thereafter until clear-fell. There is an income from thinnings. Ten years ago that income was not as good as it is today. Owing to wood energy and the use of wood pellets and wood chips, thinnings are now a real source of income for farmers. There are 21,000 hectares of forestry available now for thinning on land planted 15 or 20 years ago. Farmers should thin those forests now and avail of the income from the wood energy market.

At least four speakers, including Senators Ellis, Carty and O'Reilly, raised the issue of Coillte. They mentioned the positives and negatives of the agency and the State planting programme. On the positive side they mentioned the recreational issue and the importance of recreation. On the negative side they mentioned the issue of replanting and the protection of roads. These are important matters. If Senators are aware of any examples where Coillte has left land for longer than 12 months without replanting it, we would like to know about it. There is an obligation to replant the land. We talk to Coillte regularly about the protection of the county roads. The roads element in which we are involved is funding and grants for forest roads so the timber can be taken out of the forests. We do not wish to see the local authority roads abused. We certainly are anxious to know more about the replanting concerns.

I was delighted to hear Senator de Búrca make substantial references to the national forestry inventory. We published this document before Christmas. It is a two-year survey of forestry in Ireland and an important work. I am delighted the Senator took the trouble to read it in such detail and to quote from it. It is an important statistical document which tells us exactly what the situation is and what must be done. The Senator drew some important statistics from it. She also referred to the importance of working closely with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. It is important and, in fact, I and my officials are due to have a meeting with the Minister soon. Forestry is an important issue for the environment. Senator Ellis also raised environmental issues.

It is important we do the right thing for the environment but it is also important to have a proactive approach to planting new forestry. In various parts of the country where there is acid sensitive land, people are concerned they are being refused the opportunity of planting on their land for environmental reasons. We are working closely with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and if a real environmental issue arises, we will work together on it but if not, we must examine ways of planting the land. An example that arose last year was with regard to the hen harrier. We discussed this extensively and found a regime within which planting could take place in hen harrier areas. It is important for the future that we can plant land where possible.

Senator Bradford and Senator Ormonde described forestry as a win-win enterprise. I am delighted to be the Minister with responsibility for forestry. It is a fabulous story and an area where we can make a real difference. The timber is needed in the timber industry while forestry is good for recreation and the environment. From the farmer's point of view it offers a good income and forestry is needed for wood energy. There are many reasons to promote it. There are gaps in the market for the product and those gaps, if they do nothing else, emphasise the need for new planting.

Senator O'Reilly referred to native hardwoods and softwoods and Senator Bradford mentioned the gaps in the market for them. Senator Bradford said my opening statement was full of statistics but I hope they were useful. I will offer some further statistics now which I hope also will be useful. It is important to see where we are going. The figures show why forestry and the timber industry is important. The softwood market in Ireland, which provides trusses, floorboards and skirting, grew a great deal as more houses were built. In 1995, Ireland was using 307,000 cu. m. of softwood while in 2006 it used 825,000 cu. m. However, 60% of that wood was imported. Senator Bradford spoke about importing wood when we should provide it from our forests. The hardwood market is of greater concern in many ways. In 2006, the sawn hardwood market in Ireland used 3,435 cu. m. and 95% of that was imported. Those bald statistics demonstrate why forestry is so important.

We are planting an average of 7,000 hectares per annum but I agree with Senator Ryan that we must plant more. That is the reason we are providing so many incentives for planting. However, what are we clear-felling? We are clear-felling 8,000 hectares per annum. The wood products sector provides direct employment for 6,500 people.

If we are clear-felling 8,000 hectares we need to be planting more than that. That is one of the reasons I am so pleased we are having this debate because we were able to highlight the benefits which exist today for farmers considering getting involved in forestry. If there are any gaps in what the Department is doing, we are glad to hear from Members about them.

Some Members referred to the report the Department is undertaking under Mr. John Malone, the former Secretary General of the Department. Before Christmas we asked Mr. Malone to undertake this report and we expect him to come to us shortly with his findings. Some Members referred to the IFA document that was submitted to the report and to the many others who also made submissions. We are looking forward to the report and are always open to ideas. We are in a business where ideas are important. In this regard we are only too glad to give strong consideration to ideas that were brought up by Senators during this debate.

Senator Bradford also raised the fact that much of the agricultural land used for forestry was not suitable for food production. From our point of view, it is important to make mountainous land attractive to the REPS farmers, and also the other lands that are available for forestry.

I would fully encourage biomass and the mainly wood industry of pellets and chips. I agree with Senator Bradford that the incentives are good and that we needed to go a little further with the creation of FEPS. We are always interested in looking at what more can be done.

Senator Carty made a point about FEPS. As he is from Mayo, I must tell him we made big changes to FEPS following many calls, particularly from people in Mayo, on the provision regarding the minimum of eight hectares. We brought that minimum down to five hectares with the view to encouraging smaller farmers. I should point out that FEPS has been such a success story for us in the pilot that we also made changes at the bigger end to allow farmers access to the payment of €200. The changes we made have been encouraging.

Senator Carty referred to broad leaf, as did Senator de Búrca and others. It benefits from the higher rates of premium. We have reached the 30% level in terms of planting of broad leaf, which was the balance in the mix referred to by Senator O'Donovan and others.

Some Senators commented on the roads. I agree with the points made regarding the protection of county roads. I also agree with the point made on the importance of replanting from clear felling. Senator de Búrca and others asked about the replanting obligation in that regard. It is an issue we are looking at in the present review of the legislation. We are not here concerned with the removal but the relaxation of the planting obligation.

I thank the Senators, including Senators O'Reilly and de Búrca, who referred to tourism recreation, which is important. The neighbour wood scheme and the visit to the forest are important but our main focus this year is on new planting. There will be no forestry for our grandchildren if there is no new planting today. The reason we are able to enjoy the benefits of forestry from an environmental and recreational point of view is because our ancestors planted in days gone by. Senators also referred to the importance of forestry in the context of climate change and I agree with the views expressed.

Regular thinning of the forestry was mentioned by many Senators. It is one of the important messages we would send from today's debate. I was fortunate to visit a research site in Wicklow where one could see the difference. There was one forest which had been regularly thinned and there was another where the gate had been closed. They were next to each other. In the first there were tall trees full of good solid timber which was wonderful to look at. In the second there were small, bushy trees. They were both planted on the same day but without thinning, the trees in one were not allowed grow. The impact upon the timber of the trees not allowed grow was considerable. Today it is worthwhile because of the income the farmer could get from the thinnings.

Senator Ryan made an important point regarding vigilance on imports with which I agree. Our plant imports are subject to EU law, as is the entire timber store. I agree all of that is important. The Senator also referred to the fact that the management, including the thinnings, must be done on a professional basis. I agree with that.

A number of Senators referred to the 10% cover and I agree with their call that it should be greater. My Department is providing the incentives to encourage more farmers to plant.

Senator de Búrca referred to the situation regarding narrow commercial forestry. While we are focusing on the importance of new planting, we are not ignoring the important issue of the environmental and other benefits. I agree with the Senator that the policy must be science based. COFORD, as an agency of my Department, is involved in the research area. The more research we can do, the greater the benefit to those involved in forestry and also to those involved in the environment, including the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. We can work together on a science-based approach and are supportive of it. I dealt with the point Senator O'Donovan raised about broad leaf, the 30% being achieved and its inclusion in the programme for Government.

On the question of COFORD and the EPA report, a biological record centre was set up in Waterford two years ago. For the information of Senators, the forest service has full-time ecologists and archaeologists, which is an important area for us to address.

If I have not answered any questions important to Senators, I ask them to let me know. I hope I have covered everything. I have taken substantial notes and we will consider the ideas the Senators came up with during the debate. The forestry section of the Department is always open to ideas because it is a win-win situation for the economy, for the farmer who gets involved in it and for the environment. On those three grounds alone, we must be open to ideas in the future. I thank the Senators for holding this debate and for being so supportive of forestry. We should encourage farmers to be aware of the new incentives to plant, especially the REPS farmers. We would ask farmers to work with us in using the cash that we are now providing to encourage them take up forestry. We would ask them to work with us, as the farmer in County Meath did this week. He is retaining his entire single farm payment, planting half his land and getting all of the incentives.

I also ask those who planted 15 or 20 years ago to work with us now in terms of thinning those forests. It is in farmers' interest to do so and it is also important from the point of view of both wood energy and the future of timber.

My message to the House is that this is a solid, win-win issue. I thank Senators for their contributions to this debate.