Written answers
Wednesday, 26 April 2023
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Forestry Sector
Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
134. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Question Nos. 282 and 292 of 23 February 2023, while noting his acknowledgement of the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General Report for 2018 that the previous cost-benefit analysis for State Aid for forestry 2014-2021 failed to account for a number of factors, the reason he does not specifically address the recommendation to include the cost to the State of the final tax-free sales of forestry; if he can provide an assurance that this specific recommendation of the Comptroller and Auditor General has been accepted by his officials and forms part of the cost-benefit analyses of Irish forestry undertaken in the context of Ireland's current application for approval by the European Commission of State aid to Irish forestry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19660/23]
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in 2018, referred to by the Deputy, noted that the Cost Benefit Analysis carried out by the Department in 2014 excluded several cost factors due to the difficulty in quantifying them, including the tax treatment of forestry and the report went on to make the following recommendations:
- Where significant programme changes are being considered, a revised and updated cost benefit analysis should be undertaken. The analysis should take account of any revised targets and consider the alternative methods to achieving those targets.
- The Department should review the impact of changes to grant payment rates to ensure that continuation of the programme represents good value for the State.
The Cost Benefit Analysis that was carried out on the draft proposals took full account of the recommendations cited above in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report and included deadweight and the displacement of agricultural activity as well as an estimate of the value of carbon based on the shadow price as provided for in the Public Spending Code.
In developing the new programme proposals my Department was conscious of declining afforestation trends and the need to increase the level of afforestation to meet climate action targets. It was important to make proposals which would be realistic and attractive enough to encourage landowners to make a permanent land use change to forestry. To achieve this and to deliver the significant economic and societal benefits of forestry, an assumption of continuing tax-free timber benefits was made, especially given the long rotation period of all tree types and the much shorter duration of premiums paid for income foregone on the land.
The achievement of climate action targets and the accrual of the benefits to society of forestry requires a balancing of the societal costs against the costs and benefits to the landowner. I am confident that our economic analysis strikes an appropriate balance to increase afforestation levels and deliver significant societal benefits.
Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
135. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Question No. 286 of 23 February 2023, while noting his announcement that he is 'reassessing its policy with regard to future afforestation on organic soils and that this will be informed by the UN Global Peatlands Assessment', if he will re-examine his reply in the context of this report's recommendations to set a depth-defining peat (organic) soils at 10 centimetres to avoid GHG emissions, and as in his reply it was stated that 'applying a depth threshold that is based on the carbon stocks associated with tropical forests and wetlands is not appropriate' (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19661/23]
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As part of the development of the Forest Strategy 2023 to 2030, my Department is continuing to reassess its policy with regard to future afforestation on organic soils.
These organic soils are an extremely important store of carbon in Ireland and any future afforestation must not undermine this function. Consideration must also be given to EU environmental law and the State Aid Guidelines when it comes to the afforestation of sensitive habitats such as peatlands or wetlands.
As mitigating climate change is a central objective of the afforestation scheme it is imperative that the loss of carbon from organic soils through any proposed future afforestation will be offset by the growing forests removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
My Department is working on the development of proposals in relation afforestation of organic soils in agricultural use which deliver a positive greenhouse balance. These proposals will consider peat depth, species selection, site productivity and the potential for future drainage.
The recent UN Global Peatlands Assessment highlights the status of peatlands across a wide geographic range. It is important that we examine country specific data and take account of organic soils found in similar geographic locations.
It is correct to say that this report examines peat soils in similar locations to Ireland. The use of a 10 centimeter peat depth criteria refers to work carried out on tropical forest soils and in the report it uses this criterion to map soil distribution in the Russian Federation. Ireland is currently examining a number of scenarios based on a range of site types and will take account of peat depth as outlined earlier.
No comments