Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have contacted the Seanad Office and I will be raising it at the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight because it is a very serious concern.

The amendment relates to the very serious concern that the Bill as it is currently worded could effectively allow for strip planting in the widest sense. The definition of "native tree area" relates to spaces of less than 1 ha is one part but also basically just relates to the width of the planting. The concern in this regard is that long, narrow strips could fulfil the criteria of native tree area but cover an area larger than 1 ha and evade the criteria that would normally be applied to them under the forestry legislation. The Minister might say that these will not be defined as "forestry" but I have been looking up the original forestry legislation and there is quite a strong opinion of many that in fact 20 m wide strips as currently planned do fall under the definition of "forestry" as land under trees with a minimum of 0.1 ha and a tree crown cover of more than 20% of the total area or the potential to achieve this cover at maturity. Currently, strips of 20 m width fall under the forestry legislation and would be subject to it. There is a danger that under the new native tree area people will be incentivised to avoid the Forestry Acts process by going for strips that are possibly separated in that regard rather than planting in contiguous forest areas. When I spoke about this with the Minister of State, Deputy Hackett, she said that there are certain contexts in which such narrow 20 m wide strips might be appropriate. She mentioned riparian planting, waterways and the importance of certain areas in which it is appropriate and desirable to have native tree planting in this stripped format.The problem is that the Bill does not contain such caveats about how native tree areas are defined. It simply leaves them open as strips of 20 m wide. Effectively, the amendment proposes to give the Minister the power to specify additional criteria for strips of planting that may exceed 1 ha, but that may be only of certain width. They will outline which will be defined as "native tree areas" and which will not. This will be important when it comes to later issues, such as the issuing of grants. It is much harder after the issuing of a grant for a native tree area to say that, “Only this kind of strip area or this other kind of strip area". This is where the Minister can clarify it. That is why this is empowering the Minister to make sure that a hostage to fortune has not been inserted into the Bill in respect of potential strip planting. This could create a perverse incentive that might encourage strip planting over proper large-scale forestry for those who are going to cover an area that is larger than 1 ha, but for those who do not necessarily want to come under the remit, as they properly should, of the Forestry Acts.

It is important to note at this point that this also would make the Bill more legally robust to an extent, although the problems will still apply. It is not really the case in case law that screening or environmental responsibilities can be avoided by simply having a size limit that is tied to an area of planting. However, it certainly should not be the case that we should have strip planting, which is, in fact, bad for the environment in most situations. However, there are exceptions, such as along waterways and others. A negative, less desirable form of planting would effectively become incentivised by the Bill.