Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The planting of large areas of land with trees driven by grant aid and annual payments to landowners has to be examined for its overall impact on communities and long-term impact on the land and the environment. Most of the forests in Ireland are planted on marginal land in areas of the west and north west, where heavier soils and wetter climate limit profitable agricultural options. Many experts point out that this land is simply not productive farmland and forestry offers the best return to the farmer, mainly due to the grants. It also solves the country's carbon sequestration obligations. Some of this is correct but negative realities must be addressed simultaneously.

The general model of forestry in Ireland is the planting of large expanses of Sitka spruce trees, and the total area of Sitka spruce in my area of Donegal is the second highest of all counties in the State. The trees are planted very close together in rows, with open drainage shores running between them. The Department's forestry grants cover the full cost of the planting and fencing of the land, and under the scheme, the landowner receives an annual payment of over €500 per hectare for 15 years. If a farmer plants his or her own land, he or she will also continue to receive the basic payment or entitlement under the Common Agricultural Policy, which is usually approximately €200 per hectare on top of the forestry payment.

The reason for very generous Government assistance for forestry is to encourage it as a means of reaching our commitments on climate change, as trees are viewed as the only way to absorb and store carbon. For a farmer struggling to make a living on wet, poor land in the west, it is an attractive option, as indeed it is for investment and pension funds. Land can be bought cheaply and planting it brings the security of State funding and the 15 years of guaranteed payments. As a Government policy, grant-aided monoculture afforestation is successful in getting more land under trees.The permanent change of land use is one of the clear consequences of this policy. However, communities living in areas where forestry is replacing farming as a model of land use suffer negative impacts as there is very little labour involved in growing Sitka spruce. In reality, it closes down the countryside.

Economic and social activity around traditional farming has significant spin-off in the local area, with services being provided to the farm and products and materials traded with the farm. Normal farming activity creates opportunity, which in turn creates more activity. On the other hand, the farm planted with Sitka spruce never needs new gates, fencing or anyone to cut fodder, bale and gather it in, or to plough for reseeding. There are no animals to feed or care for and no need for a vet to look at an animal. There is no need for anyone to upkeep habitat or hedges, fix machinery or maintain sheds.Above all, a farm on which Sitka spruce is grown needs no farmer to go to the mart to meet other farmers or to call on neighbours when in need, because there are no needs. The planted farm becomes deserted, wild and uninteresting. The rural community that once survived on the micro-economy delivered in an area by the activity of farming suffers decline and also becomes deserted. The economic activity created by planting, maintaining, thinning and processing conifers is very low as much of the industry is highly automated. It is estimated that there is approximately one full-time job per 1,000 ha of forestry. We, therefore, want a policy that encourages the establishment of local plant nurseries for job creation and to avoid having to import saplings or young trees. For example, a system of credits for buying locally grown trees could be considered.

Farm after farm being planted in an area such as County Leitrim has a major environmental and visual impact which has been ignored, while the genuine complaints of local people are drowned out by the chorus from the State agencies about meeting our afforestation targets for climate change reasons. When marginal land comes up for sale, local farmers who make a living from suckler cows and sheep find it difficult to complete a purchase because they are always outbid by the forestry companies, backed by hedge and pension funds. Another problem created by our afforestation policy is the transfer of land ownership from local farmers to international corporate interests which engage forestry management companies to thin and maintain the forests.

Many farmers who plant the land themselves collect the annual grants for 15 years and are then offered a buyout by the forestry management companies on behalf of big corporate funds when the first thinning is carried out. Such offers are hard to resist for ageing farmers as the next payment from the trees is 15 to 20 years away. This move to corporate ownership of forestry land is happening apace and is supported by Government grants for carbon sequestration reasons. Sinn Féin is calling for a 50 km radius limit for establishment grant and forestry premium payments. This means that the recipient’s main residence must be within 50 km of the forestry site. For companies, the limit should apply to their main headquarters to ensure that the economic benefits of forestry are retained in the local area.

The timber industry in Ireland has been built around the Sitka spruce model of forestry. The harvesting machinery, transport vehicles and the handling equipment in sawmills have all been developed for that type of timber. However much of this fast-growing timber is of low value, with up to 50% of it going for pulp to make paper or for chipping. Some of it is used for chipboard and fibreboard products and some is used as biomass and burned, which releases the carbon absorbed straight back into the atmosphere. Fulfilling our climate change obligations is the reason offered for the high level of grants for forestry but the efficiency and effectiveness of the Sitka spruce forestry model as a carbon sink is in doubt. I ask the Minister of State what studies have been carried out by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on the most beneficial crops for sequestration. There are real worries that this model of conifer forestry is not delivering in terms of climate change. Scarce public money is going to support the permanent change of land use to the benefit of an intensive timber industry under the guise of promoting carbon sequestration. The knock-on effect of the forestry industry is a bad outcome for rural communities, with depopulation, declining numbers involved in farming and major changes to the rural landscape. Ireland must move away from the Sitka spruce industrial model of forestry. Where forestry is planted, it should be with a variety of mainly broadleaf species and continual cover such that trees are replanted as they are removed should be ensured.

There must be a fundamental change in policy direction by the Government. The Department is involved in an aggressive afforestation strategy engaging the commercial private sector in a potentially dangerous way. The concentration of forestry in certain geographical areas of mainly marginal land must end. Different uses and management of land by farmers to absorb carbon more affectively must be developed and supported. I would be obliged if the Minister of State would address the concerns raised by my party and I as well as the suggested policy solutions put forward by my party.