Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 746: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views regarding the amount of forestry that is currently being planted on good quality agricultural land; if it is correct that a felling licence must be applied for in order to harvest the forest after the agreed timeframe has lapsed and that this licence will only be issued if the farmer agrees to replant the land, thus excluding it from any chance of returning to agricultural use; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1207/12]

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Only afforestation on agricultural land is eligible for support under the Afforestation Grant and Premium Schemes. Given the significant State investment in afforestation, we need to ensure that the land to be planted is capable of producing a commercial crop of timber. In 2011, a total of 6,653 hectares of new forests were planted.

There is no requirement on a grant beneficiary to apply for a Felling Licence to harvest the forest after an agreed time frame has elapsed. The decision on when to harvest the forest, or even whether to harvest or not, rests solely with the forest owner. However, under the Forestry Act 1946, either a General Felling Licence or a Limited Felling Licence Felling Licence would be required, other than in very limited circumstances, before any trees can be felled .

A General Felling Licence is used for commercial forestry operations and carries a compulsory replanting obligation. While a replanting condition can be attached to a Limited Felling Licence, such a condition is not obligatory with this type of licence. The Limited Felling Licence is to cater for situations where, after felling has occurred, some or all of the land is not to be replanted. However, my Department attaches a replanting condition in all but the most exceptional cases.

The general principle of replanting exists in order to ensure that the national forest estate is not progressively eliminated. Removing the replanting obligation would have serious consequences for the State in terms of deforestation with consequent implications in respect of our carbon sinks and our Kyoto obligations, stable wood flows for existing timber industries, environmental and recreational benefits and the loss of significant State investment.