Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Leas-Chathaoirleach on his new role. Having worked with him at the Council of Europe, I know he will bring great gravitas and thought to it. I welcome the Minister of State to the Seanad, a space where she has been before. However, I have to join with everybody to say it is unfortunate that in the first meeting we have here, the Minister of State is contributing to a practice we have seen of rushing through legislation and indeed shortcircuiting due legislative scrutiny. It has been pointed out that the Bill was circulated yesterday. The deadline for amendments was today. A very important issue is that this deadline applies to amendments for both Committee and Report Stage. Again, a key part of any legislative process is that on Committee Stage we bring forward our proposals, the Government answers the questions and concerns raised, and then there is a period in which we reflect and perhaps revise or change, taking on board points the Minister may have made, and put forward revised amendments. Indeed, the Minister may take on board valid points that are made on Committee Stage and reflect them in his or her own Report Stage amendments. That process has not been allowed for. Committee and Report Stages will be taken together. In that context, since she has denied herself the opportunity to go and seek advice and reflect on proposals, if there is something that is positive and seems to have merit I would encourage the Minister of State to accept it. If she needs to reflect on it in the Dáil she may do so. Otherwise she is effectively making our proposing of amendments meaningless. Nonetheless I will propose a number of amendments.

I would also like to join colleagues in highlighting the concerns around the consultation process, its abbreviated nature and the fact that submissions were not made available. There are some interesting statistics and figures. We have had some misleading information, unfortunately, even in the briefing documents that were circulated. One of the briefing documents sent to Oireachtas Members told us that the decision of the forestry appeals committee is final. We know it is not final because of course any appellant has the right of recourse to the High Court and normal judicial process under the Aarhus Convention. It is slightly misleading and discouraging in that regard.I was informed that most of these appeals were not successful, so let us consider the figures. More than 50% in 2018 and 2019 resulted in a change or withdrawal of the licence. People are doing the work that the State should be doing by having an effective and proper forestry process, which means that individuals do not have to make appeals because they are submitting proper and appropriate applications and are being supported in doing so.

We have been told about the urgency of the Bill and that it is being rushed because of the crisis in the sector, including for employment therein. There will also be a crisis in January when Brexit happens, given that 80% of the sector's market is in the UK. I respectfully suggest that a Band-Aid of eroding regulation and legal processes is not what is needed and that a just transition plan for the forestry sector, one that recognises that it will face serious economic challenges within just a few months, might be more appropriate. If there is a sector that is struggling, it is within the bounds of the Government's remit to direct resources to same and give funding to its workers and those who invest in it to allow them to transition to different models.

Ireland has the second smallest forest cover in the EU at 11%. These facts are agreed on by the entire Oireachtas. They were cited in a Green Party motion tabled in the previous Oireachtas, where they were accepted without amendment by all parties. As such, these are not my opinions, but the agreed facts. Our 11% compares with a European average of 30% and the majority of our forests are monocultures. State forestry policy has predominantly been based on a rotation, clear fell and replant cycle using monocultures. Aspects of the current afforestation model have in some cases had negative impacts on local communities, biodiversity, water quality and landscapes.

The gravity of the global biodiversity crisis, including the loss of species - 68% of species have been lost in a very short period - and important populations of species, the undermining of ecosystems, the vital role of land use in the hydrological cycle, the objectives of water quality under the EU water framework directive, the vulnerability of even-aged monoculture plantations to disease, fire and windthrow, the role that changed land use practices must play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sequestering carbon in the long term, the essential role that afforestation, land use and soil carbon management must play in Ireland's national energy and climate plan, the commitments that Ireland has entered into in the context of Natura 2000 and the EU birds and habitats directives and our failure to meet those are all acknowledged facts. These formed part of what the whole Oireachtas agreed had led us to a time when we had to move to the next stage of Irish forestry and address the challenges ahead. This is the position that we all took last year, yet we are seeing a significant push to fast-track business as usual and everything that is in the system currently. This Bill is literally about having as many horses as possible bolt before we consider a door-closing strategy somewhere down the line.

Even if the Minister of State had wanted to address a specific issue, she could have introduced a Bill that gave additional resources to the forestry appeals committee and then allowed for a further division of resources. She could have introduced a Bill that represented decent strategies for dealing with the fundamental underlying facts. If we are really discussing a crisis in wood supply, the Bill could have contained measures on allowing thinning licences to be fast-tracked over clear felling licences. The choice could have been made to narrow the Bill solely to the question of felling instead of including the issue of planting.We know that planting is predominantly that of Sitka and monoculture. With every planting that takes place through a fast-tracked forestry appeals committee decision, that is ten, 15 or 20 years in which that ground, which will have been planted under the old system, will not be able to reflect any future forestry policy. The ground is being given and lost. Despite suggestions to the contrary, a large portion of these appeals have been upheld because the committee has taken these issues seriously.

Wangari Maathai from Kenya, who won the Nobel Prize for her work on the promotion and protection of forests, stated, "You cannot protect the environment unless you empower people, you inform them and you help them understand that these resources are their own, that they must protect them." The people who are taking appeals are taking seriously that call to action. They are doing their work in respect of the protection of the environment. That the results have shown licences having been overturned or changed shows they have serious credibility in what they have done.

In the case of a Bill such as this that relates to due legal process and to access to justice under the Aarhus Convention, even if it is the best Bill in the world, which it is not, it is especially important that it show due legislative process. The Minister of State is trying to assure us there will be due regard for the law and access to justice, yet we are skipping pre-legislative scrutiny and the Government is short-circuiting legislative scrutiny within this House. They are real concerns.

I welcome, as others have, the removal of the relevant persons category, which is very important, but there is still no clarity on fees. We need to be assured there will be no fees. There is no clarity because there are still rules and regulations that both the forestry appeals committee and the Minister may put into place, and it is unclear as to whether those rules and regulations will exclude any category of person in the future. The Minister of State might assure us. Will they create obstacles?

I come to my final point, although there are many other important issues that we will have an opportunity to debate. Perhaps the most egregious aspect of the Bill was not in the agricultural appeals Bill or the heads of Bill that were sent for consultation but was instead added to the Bill we received last night. It is a new suggestion that when the Minister makes any policy directives about what appeals are important, he or she, "shall have regard to the need to ensure an economically and environmentally sustainable yield of forest goods and services in the State." This undermines the fact that environmental services may be more important. It refers to a "yield", which is extractive language. The Mackinnon report talked about the tension between forestry production and carbon sequestration-----