Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I welcome his officials.

This is an area in which I have a developing interest because I am involved in helping a loved one with a forestry application. In that regard, I thank people for the support I have got. In making inquiries, I was very grateful for the assistance received from the Department. I acknowledge Mr. Delaney in this regard and also the Minister of State.

As is often the case when you are more directly involved with a matter, you come to realise the many issues people face. I have had occasion to speak to people in forestry. I thought I would take this opportunity today to put on record some of the concerns I am hearing. I realise the Minister of State is not hearing about them for the first time. Indeed, they are concerns he will be very well aware of. I have heard him speak eloquently about some of the issues. I am speaking now particularly about the world as seen through the lens of people involved in forestry and forestry professionals, who talk genuinely about the bureaucracy. One person said his pet hate is that when dealing with the Department, it is not always the same person who deals with his queries, meaning that each time he has a subsequent query, he must start afresh with a new person, who may have to rehearse or become familiar with the issues all over again.When it comes to the administration of bureaucracy in the best sense, there are decisions that have to be made on how tasks and work are apportioned, but can more be done so officials will have what some professionals would describe as a little more ownership of particular applications, be they for felling, roads or afforestation, the result being that those in forestry would deal with the same person constantly when going through the various phases of inquiry?

It has also been pointed out to me that some inspectors could be more amenable to landowners or could work with people more, perhaps on preplanning consultations and talking to people in this regard. This is an area that the Minister of State has addressed at Talking Timber and so on. An example given to me was of somebody putting in an agroforestry application and who needed an assessment. It had to do with the hen harrier. The farmer had to pay €1,000 for an ecologist’s report but then, when the ecologist gave the green light, the farmer failed the assessment because of soil type. Such farmers are left wondering whether they could not have been asked to obtain the ecology report only when it was established that there were no other grounds to fail anyway. When something like what I have described happens, it leaves the person feeling their money and time have been wasted unfairly. The situation is such that the person does not get a refusal but maybe an invitation to plant an alternative type of tree, leaving him or her feeling the whole application is being kept in limbo.

Another example given to me of an issue that causes frustration concerns where a farmer is told, in respect of a particular project, the county council requires a planning application to be made, whereas the professional involved knows or finds rightly that the council does not want to deal with the issue at all. The professional, as predicted, will say they do not want to deal with the issue at a planning level and urge applying for an exemption, but the farmer might not be able to go for an exemption because he or she will have been told by the inspector that a planning application is required. These are the day-to-day frustrations that arise. In some cases, there can be a very good reason. We all tend to see these things from our personal point of view when dealing with them but it may be that, in each and every case, there is a reason. However, it is fair to say that there is a sense on occasion that there is not the flexibility or sense of practicality needed to help things to progress.

We are at a point where the expected timeline for an assessment for afforestation is six months, or nine months if there is an ecological aspect. I believe I am correct in saying the latter. Some of my correspondents asked how it will be possible for the State to plant its target of 12,000 ha per year if it is to take six or nine months to get approval. I am not saying there is not another side to these questions but it is important that they be tabled. The way it was put to me concerned our talk about ensuring greater speed in the handling of applications for asylum and getting the period down to three months. It was stated that if we can manage something that concerns people’s lives in three months, surely an application connected to forestry, being something of a less weighty matter, can be addressed with even more dispatch. As I implied, I am very open to hearing the other side of the arguments.

There is also a perception concerning broadleaves. The position is right and proper and the schemes now encourage the growing of broadleaves. Obviously, we have to note the colossal damage done by Storm Éowyn. The view that is quite widespread is that the premiums are simply not enough to get going the kind of forestry business required, given the value of land and indeed the demand for it, not least because of the nitrates arrangements.The question being asked is in the context of ash dieback, where the vast majority of broadleaves were ash and there has been a huge decline in broadleaves in the overall volume of native woodland. A lot of that ash will go into Sitka spruce in second rotation. In some areas, land could be up to €20,000 an acre. We know an ash forest may be worth €2,000 an acre. One farmer said in the context of what people do around the second rotation that if there is no premium, farmers would be better off grazing goats.

Could a more targeted approach be taken into the future? Perhaps there could be higher premiums where the State wants particular things done and has particular types of forestry it wants to achieve such as, for example, in sensitive areas. Perhaps premiums could be run over a longer term and a lower premium provided in areas where farmers could plant whatever they want. These are the kind of issues that have been raised with me. As I said, I wanted to put them on the record today and to hear the response of the Minister of State if possible, in what is admittedly a limited amount of time available to him.

I wish to acknowledge, in the context of the recent storm devastation, the fact that many people were left without power for a long time. Great efforts have been made in that regard, but I had to raise in the Seanad in recent weeks the fact that some people were without power for an unacceptable amount of time. I also want to note the good work being done by Teagasc in its ongoing support for forest owners impacted by storm damage. That is my summary of the issues I want to raise with the Minister of State today. I do not intend to use all of my time. I will leave it at that. I will be very grateful to hear his response.