Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I apologise to Senator Lombard if I made a wrong suggestion. I was simply saying we do not know where they came from. As we know that 99% of those who made submissions in favour of the Bill did not mention any policy issue, we know that such a suggestion can only have come from 1% of the 81% of those who submitted in favour of the Bill. That is less than 0.81% as a potential source for this recommendation. However, that is by the by. What really matters in this House is the legislation and the powers of the Minister going forward. As has been said, for all of us who care about forestry and who want Ireland to become a country with more than 11% afforestation and with a target of 30% afforestation, what matters is that we have good forestry policy. The proposed new section 14D(2), as it stands, suggests that when making any policy directive to the FAC on how it prioritises appeals, the Minister "shall have regard to the need to ensure an economically and environmentally sustainable yield of forest goods and services in the State". Again, this places the idea of a productive yield, which points to felling trees and producing forest goods and services, as a single goal or the main goal. This is extractive language that talks about sustaining the levels of commercial product as something that must be considered before anything else may be considered. That is really dangerous. Section 14D(1) gives the Minister the power to make policy directives. There are times when there may be an economic imperative to give such policy directives but there will also be times when there will be a biodiversity imperative.It may be a biodiversity imperative that does not give us an economic benefit, even an economically sustainable economic benefit, but that is about the fact that, for example, 63% of our bird species are on the red and amber list. If we get to a point of having only five remaining hen harriers in Ireland, the Minister of State may wish to ask the FAC to prioritise such appeals as relate to the concerns about hen harriers. That is an example. Luckily, while there are concerns, we are not at that point with hen harriers. At times the Minister must be able to talk about a social, biodiversity and environmental imperative that is not about an environmental product, service, commercial entity or commercial product. At some time in the future, such considerations may be a priority for the Minister or another Minister. I inquired about these two lines because I was concerned about the way they appeared in the Bill, as they were not in the heads of the Bill, and I was told that it was thought to be useful to set out principles.

I have a number of amendments but I will only talk about three of them; I do not want to take the full day to do so. Each of them took thought and reflected genuine, positive approaches to the giving of policy directives to the FAC and the kinds of principles that should or might be considered when deciding to issue those priorities. I will read one example because I have lists, and they are variations, but I genuinely try to reflect even the priorities of the Government. In amendment No. 57, I suggest that the Minister of State, when making a policy directive, might consider "(a) the Sustainable Development Goals, (b) the climate change and biodiversity crisis, (c) Ireland’s targets in respect of emissions reduction, (d) biodiversity, [which is part of the Minister's remit and part of her title as Minister]" or any one of the EU directives, and I will not list the numbers, in respect of birds' habitats and wildlife. The Minister might have regard to principles of the national pollinator plan and the idea of just transition. I reiterate that what will be needed in the forestry industry is just transition to a different model of forestry industry as the old model will change with the change in markets internationally and the change in climate criteria. In my amendment I suggest the promotion of broadleaf planting and continuous cover forestry, which are two stated goals that have been talked about and very slowly introduced into our forestry policy. It refers also to social impact and public amenity. Finally, and this is one of the crucial points, we have a forestry programme that will expire in four months. When the Minister of State is considering giving policy to the FAC, she should look to this national forestry strategy that all of us will develop together. A basic point should be that she should look to whatever those agreed principles in a national forestry programme are and that that will guide her in giving directives so that, for example, the FAC will consider appeals in a way that is complementary to our shared forestry strategy, which, I hope, will contain environmental, economic, biodiversity and social elements.

That is an example of some of the principles that could be brought into play. The Minister of State may not be able to accept any of the variations of those principles so I outlined versions that took out some, left in others, changed directives, and took out anything that was not in the law and put in everything that was in the law. I tried to keep to established policy; nothing that I wish for myself but issues that have been agreed as national policy. Failing that, I ask that she would delete that section, bearing in mind that she still has the freedom to give directives, if required, in respect of large-scale felling, thinning licences and so forth. She can give directives as she wishes under section 1. She should not tie her hands, the hands of a future Minister or the hands or the credibility of a future forestry national programme by curtailing her capacity to give directives by placing one issue above another.

The Mackinnon report pointed to the fact that there is a tension between some of the commercial purposes and the climate purposes we require from our forests.The text in the Bill makes that call very clearly on one side of what has in the Mackinnon report been recognised as a very difficult balancing act. If the Minister of State cannot accept these amendments, I ask a small thing: that she could consider either amendment No. 61 or amendment No. 71, which very mildly remove the most egregious language in the Bill, which is "yield". This is the core of an extractive language. We are talking not simply about economically and environmentally sustainable practices, industries or products but, with the world "yield", about the physical produce. With that language, "yield", in the Bill, it would become difficult for the Minister of State to prioritise thinning over clearfell, for example, because thinning would result in less of a yield in very blunt terms when we talk about an economically continuous yield. It would result in less of a yield or a more prolonged yield. I would like the Minister of State to indicate if she might be able to support any of these 17 amendments.