Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 8 May 2024
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Forest Strategy Implementation Plan: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Before we begin, I bring to witnesses' attention that when giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that witnesses have full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter.
Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in the committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in a member having his or her online access removed.
The purpose of the second session today is Ireland's forest strategy implementation plan. The committee will hear from the following officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Mr. Brendan Gleeson, Secretary General, Mr. Paul Savage, assistant secretary general, and Mr. Barry Delany, director of forestry. I welcome our guests to this evening's meeting and ask Mr. Gleeson to present his opening statement.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to speak about the forest strategy today. For the past 100 years we have been creating new forests in Ireland and the forest strategy builds on this legacy. We have gone from 1% forest cover in 1900 to nearly 12% today, which is the highest it has been for 350 years. Forestry is a priority for the Department and farmers are critical to delivering an increase in planting. This is why we have undertaken extensive work in the development of a policy that supports a sustainable future for forestry in Ireland.
The forest strategy was preceded by a comprehensive public consultation and the development of a shared national vision for trees, woods and forests in Ireland until 2050. Citizens want the right tree in the right place for the right reasons with the right management. The forest strategy reflects that vision. It is a roadmap for the rest of this decade for the delivery of forests for climate, for nature, for wood, for people, and for economic and rural development. The strategy includes an implementation plan with 87 detailed actions.
Close to half of these actions are contained in the new forestry programme. The new programme covers the next four years and has budgetary commitments of €1.3 billion, which is the largest investment in tree planting in the history of the State. The programme includes schemes to support the creation of new forests and to sustainably manage existing forests. The majority of these schemes are now open to applications, with more planned to open on a phased basis during the year. The primary support for the creation of new forests is the new afforestation scheme. This includes increased premium rates ranging from between 46% to 66% higher than those previously applicable. The incentives for farmers are higher than those for other landowners. They get premiums for 20 years for farmers, compared with 15 years for non-farmers.
The programme supports all types of trees and forests. For example, a farmer who plants an 8 ha native forest can receive over €253,000. This is made up of almost €80,000 in grants for forest establishment and fencing and more than €176,000 in premiums over 20 years. A farmer who plants an 8 ha mixed forest with conifers and 20% broadleaves, can receive over €157,000. This is made up of almost €38,000 in grants for forest establishment and fencing and more than €119,000 in premiums over 20 years. When this forest is harvested, at current prices it could realise approximately €200,000 for the farmer, subject of course to a number of variables. In addition, farmers can generate income from thinning interventions over the life of the forest cycle. The new forestry programme also includes an environmental report grant to support additional costs associated with applications under the licensing process. All payments and earnings continue to be income tax free. Supports are also available to forest owners who wish to manage their forest under sustainable forestry management practices. These include the forest road scheme, the woodland improvement scheme and the native woodland conservation scheme. These are all already open to applications. In addition, the forestry programme provides incentives to encourage training and raising awareness for sustainable forest management.
The knowledge transfer groups initiative, which facilitates peer-to-peer learning amongst forest owners, is already under way. It is important to raise awareness of forestry at a wider scale and to promote its benefits to both forest owners and communities. To help achieve this, we are funding 42 innovative promotion projects across the country. I would also like to mention the new native tree area scheme. No licence is needed for planting under this scheme. Farmers can receive up to €22,84 in premiums over ten years for planting 1 ha of native trees. This is a good gateway into afforestation and the approval process is very quick.
I will turn to those whose plantations have been affected by ash dieback disease. Since 2013, more than €10 million has been paid for site clearance and replanting of ash forests, covering 1,700 ha. We also increased incentives in the new programme with a 100% increase in the clearance grant and increased replanting rates. This scheme is already fully open, and applications are being processed and paid. I am aware that there are around 6,000 ash forest owners who have not yet joined the scheme and it would be in their interest to do so as soon as possible. A report commissioned by the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, which reviewed the supports in place made clear that more could be done. On foot of those recommendations, the Government only last week approved an action plan for ash dieback. An additional €79.5 million of funding is now available to pay a climate performance action payment of €5,000 per hectare to those ash plantation owners who have or will replant under a departmental reconstitution scheme. The plan not only offers additional financial support to landowners but it also commits to other actions in terms of process, implementation and communication. The Department is now progressing the arrangements to implement the actions contained in the plan. A task force to facilitate a swift implementation of the ash dieback action plan has been set up as a subcommittee of the new forest strategy consultative committee and its first meeting will take place in the coming weeks.
We cannot speak about forestry without talking about licensing. We have in recent years put much effort and resources into developing a more responsive system to build confidence in the sector. We have also set out our level of ambition for delivery this year in the forestry licensing plan, which includes a target to issue 4,200 new licences in 2024. This is however entirely contingent on receiving enough applications to achieve this goal. While there has been a steady level of interest, we need more applications to plant. We are also committed to turning around these applications within six or nine months, depending on whether an appropriate assessment is needed or not.
All applications must go through a very rigorous assessment process to ensure all environmental obligations are fully complied with and this the space in which we are operating. We will continue to look at improving our systems so that we have an efficient and effective service and we are committed to training and providing all the required help to registered foresters to make successful applications.
It is of note that there are 2,945 ha currently available for planting under the afforestation schemes. Ultimately, the decision to plant trees is one for private landowners, most of whom are farmers. This will be determined not only by the relative economics of activities on the land asset, but also by the cultural attachment to the land and the more traditional farming activities practised on it. For many farmers, the economics of forestry stacks up well relative to other activities on the land. It has been shown there is a good internal rate of return for farmers from forestry, but the cultural elements run deep. This is why forestry must be viewed as an activity complementary to other farming activities and that can deliver a strong economic return for farmers. We have now set a course for a renewed future for forestry in Ireland. It will not be easy and achieving our ambitious objectives will require a wide collective effort and it will be important to ensure there is a shared responsibility, collaboration and ownership approach across Government Departments, agencies and forestry stakeholders. The Department is fully committed to playing its part in supporting a successful and sustainable forestry sector for the benefit of all.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Gleeson. We have discussed ash dieback here on numerous occasions. We have been lobbying very hard as a committee and as individual members to get some recognition of the huge financial loss that was suffered by the growers. I welcome the €5,000 per ha. It will not cover all the losses due to ash dieback but it is a recognition of the huge loss these farmers have suffered. In general it has been very well received by the forestry owners. It took a while but we have got a recognition that they were entitled to some compensation for the loss they incurred, so I very much welcome that announcement.
Deputy Kerrane is first.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Cathaoirleach. I thank the officials for coming in and for the opening statement. To begin, it would be good to get their read on where forestry is at overall since the start of the new programme. How do they assess where we are with forestry?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I thank the Deputy. We are at the beginning of a programme and we are trying to develop generational change in a very compacted period. We have the new programme approved since September. That is a very short period to determine how well the programme is going to do. Right now the number of applications we are getting is not what we would like. Part of the issue is we are a the point now where we are developing a communications strategy. We are trying to talk to farmers about the relative benefits of this. The policy we have is to give people choices about what they do with their land and this is a choice. It stacks up very well for a proportion of people's land, but it is also the case farmers have a very deep attachment to the traditional activities they do on land and this is a kind of leap for many farmers because they are setting aside part of their land for a good economic return, but in perpetuity. That is a big leap for a landowner to take. We understand that.
Part of the damaging narrative has been that this is an alternative to farming. If we present it in that way we will never succeed in persuading people to engage in forestry. That is part of the challenge. We have to change the narrative here. We have to get everybody promoting this as a remunerative activity on a land asset that can be used for multiple purposes. We cannot push people into this; we have to ensure the incentives are attractive enough. It is the case the conditions around planting in this programme are more onerous from an environmental point of view than they have been in the past and it is the case we have had problems with licensing. I think I said the last time I was in here that from my perspective what people need is confidence the licences will be issued within a specific period. That is far more important than saying we will issue licences within three months and then failing to do it. We are making a commitment now under licensing that we will issue licences under the new programme within six months if no appropriate assessment is required and within nine if an appropriate assessment is required. People can apply for that now with confidence that, barring something unforeseen, it will be the time period. Then we have to communicate the relative benefits of forestry to people. The economics stack up if you are a landowner.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will Mr. Gleeson give us whatever up-to-date figures he has on the number of applications received under the new programme since September?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Yes. I might be asked for a lot of figures tonight and I will try to give them here. I will follow up with something in writing to anyone who asks for figures. There are rapid-fire questions that come at us here and I do not want to be accused of misleading people. I will give the Deputy the figures I have here and we will follow up.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Gleeson.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
These are the figures for afforestation. Overall we have approved 394 approvals for afforestation since the scheme opened in September. The number of new approvals under applications is 357 and the number of category 3 applications which are approved under the new scheme is 54. I ask Mr. Delany to clarify that because I have not explained that particularly well.
Mr. Barry Delany:
I thank the Deputy. To date, we have issued approvals for over 3,000 ha of afforestation. Of that, 1,590 ha have submitted their financial approval. That means they have received a licence or an approval from us and are going to proceed. That still leaves an outstanding acreage to come in, so it is something we are working with the sector on and discussing clearly with it to get areas planted as soon as possible. In addition to that, under the new programme we have had 357 new licence applications for afforestation come in, of which we have approved 54. Those newer applications are coming in with all the new requirements in terms of surveys and reports to make it a little easier to get through them. The majority of the applications, some 294, have come in since January. That is really when the new applications are coming in. The registered foresters were focused on the licences that were in the system which applied under the old programme to come into the new programme and that is where their focus was. As we came into January and February, it was the new applications from new farmers. We are getting on average about 12 to 14 new afforestation applications a week and processing about ten a week at the moment.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Of the 50-odd applications that have been approved under the new programme since September, I assume the bulk of those approved to date would not be from the 294 in since January. I assume what is approved is probably from September more so than from January.
Mr. Barry Delany:
A number of them are. The shortest turnaround time would be 67 days for a file that would have come in in January. It would have been on broadly agricultural land with no environmental constraints and got through very quickly. Those ones that can screen out have come in since January. Most of the new afforestation approval applications have come since January, of those 54, because again, they are a little easier for us to go through.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What do the officials make of 294 applications since January? Do they think that is low?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I do not think it is what we need. The target is 8,000 ha per year. If the average plantation is 8 ha, then we need 1,000 applications a year. That is where we need to be and the average plantation may not be 8 ha. We need lots more applications, but it is a tall order to go from where we were to those kinds of numbers in a relatively short period. The programme was approved in September and there is a lot of education to be done in the meantime and a lot of work to be done with the forestry sector and our own people to understand the rules. It is a start. We need to get better and get out there and communicate the benefits of the scheme to people in a way they will understand so they will see the economic benefit of doing this.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have one or two more quick questions and then I will finish as others also want to contribute.
At this point, are the witnesses concerned about the conditions under the new programme, which they described as onerous for some people? Under the maps for various conditions, large swathes of the country are essentially cancelled out. At least looking at it from the outside, people might ask themselves whether they should bother. If people need to get assessments in various things, many people, especially farmers, frankly would not be bothered in some cases because it is costly. People are coming in and all of that and it is onerous. At this point do the witnesses have any concerns about the conditions as set out, that they are in some way leading to fewer people getting involved in forestry?
When will the Department review the conditions under the new programme?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I will explain the process of approval and perhaps reflect on where we were 20 years ago. We planted on deep peatlands 20 years ago. Our understanding of the net emissions factors from planting on deep peatlands is different now than it was then. Maybe it was not even a consideration then. Most of that was done between the 1950s and the 1980s. We are one of the few member states that provides grants for forestry so we needed state aid approval and conditions were applied in the context of that state aid approval. Those conditions relate to peat, high nature value farmland, breeding waders, hen harriers and wetlands. Therefore for every application we get we have to do that assessment. That is the reality we are living with.
A review of the programme will take place in 2025, but it is important to say that the Commission sought the review. The Commission did not seek the review with a view to watering down the environmental requirements. If people are waiting to see some dilution of these factors, it will not happen. It just will not. I want to kill that idea straight away. When we do the review, we will hold a full public consultation and we will have to go back to the Commission. We went through a long process with the Commission. People will know that as we were in and out of the committee regularly during that process. However, without the application of these conditions, many of which have their roots in legislative requirements anyway, we would not have a programme now. I do not want people to think the review will allow us to dilute these requirements. That is very unlikely.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If the numbers stay as low as they are - and they are very low; it has been many years since we reached 8,000 ha and that is our target - there will be no review until that Commission-ordered review in 2025.
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There will not be any review until then.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
That is next year and we have just launched the programme. To be honest, the idea that these things are malleable and we can change them is wrong. That idea will have the opposite effect to the acceleration of applications because people will say that something easier is coming and therefore they will hang on. These are the rules. We will operate within them. We will have a decent licensing system that will give people a licence within a reasonable period. This is a 20 or 40 year commitment for people, so-----
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will ask my last question as I am conscious of other members. Will the €5,000 payment that was announced for ash dieback be paid in one lump sum?
Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What was the rationale for that? Most people will see €5,000 and will not know.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
We went through a process. This does not happen in a vacuum. It happens in the context of state aid rules and national budgetary requirements. We have to go to the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform for approval. It looks at our expenditure profiles over a period and approves something like this. It wants the payments to be manageable in the context of the overall public expenditure profile. That is the reason it is in three payments.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for coming in. To follow on from Deputy Kerrane, how long will the three payments take to be made?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What does Mr. Gleeson mean by the end of the premium period?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If the game was up on them.
Mr. Barry Delany:
There is a first upfront payment. Anyone who has gone through the scheme, cleared and replanted can get the €2,500. Then at year four when those trees have been planted and people get the second or third grant payment from us they will get €1,250 and €1,250 the following year. That is how the €5,000 payment is being structured.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Do people have to wait four or five years, at best? Will the quickest be four or five years?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If people have premiums, do they have to plant again? Could it take seven or eight years for some people?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am dealing with the €5,000. Will Mr. Delany stay on the €5,000 so that I will understand? We have looked at the scenario of the people who are replanting now. They will get €2,500 now and €1,250 and €1,250 in four and five years' time. Is that right?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is five years. If I have three years left, do I get €2,500 now or when will I get it? Do I have to have planted and wait four years before I will get the other €2,500?
Mr. Barry Delany:
The Deputy would receive €2,500 immediately after he has cleared and planted, whether he has a premium or not. That is immediate. He would receive the other €2,500 in the two subsequent years, at the end of his premium cycle. That could be in years four, five or six. The reality is that there is approximately 5,500 ha left belonging to people who have premiums running up to about 2034.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay, it is different from how I had read it in the beginning. I thought people would get a lump sum of €5,000. The divil is always in the detail.
Mr. Gleeson mentioned €1.3 billion over a five year period. How did he come to that figure?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How will it be spent over the five year period?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It sounded good though.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Am I correct that there is €300 million for afforestation and the rest will be spent over a 20 year period?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The figure will be spent over 20 years.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Gleeson talked about the payment per hectare for sowing for any farmer. Absolutely no peat soil can be sowed on. Is that correct? The Minister said so.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Minister said it. I am quoting him.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am talking about the hectare.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Am I right?
Mr. Barry Delany:
As part of the approval for the native tree area scheme, because people can plant without a licence, they only go through scheme approval. In effect, it is red and green. They put in their submissions. There are various layers in terms of peat, hen harrier, freshwater pearl mussel and high nature value farmland. On that basis we can issue the approval. It is possible to plant native species on peat. It just has to come through an application for a forest type-1 licence
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It has to be done through the process. It is not permitted to plant without a licence.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am correct in what I said.
How many of those applications have been approved?
Mr. Barry Delany:
We have about 250 ha of approvals under the native tree area scheme. We also made some changes to it recently to make it more attractive. There were some issues around how the planting of corners of fields was calculated and in relation to certain water courses and native tree area scheme 2, which is the riparian-----
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that included in the dashboard we get?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is included in the overall figure.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Am I correct that since the new scheme in September, the licences the Department has given out are for about 1,900 ha?
Mr. Barry Delany:
From September, it is about 2,000 ha. In addition, there are over 1,000 ha for people who had licences and opted in to the new programme to get the better financial approach. That does not appear in the dashboard so, in total, we have about 3,500 ha approved since the opening of the programme.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When we were in the audiovisual room for a meeting last summer, the Department told us there was something like 7,000 ha kicking around for four or five years with regard to licences that were being dealt with. We are talking about another 2,000 ha here. The fact is that since January, 392 ha have been planted. Is that correct?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The same as every other year when we saw the dashboard.
Mr. Barry Delany:
With regard to what I had flagged earlier, of the licences that we have approved, 1,590 ha have indicated they are proceeding with planting, and that is of the 3,500 ha that are there. With regard to the 7,000 ha that I spoke about in the previous programme, about 2,000 ha of those went through the de minimis scheme. If the Deputy recalls it, we had a scheme to try to bridge the gap between the old programme and the new programme. That was 2,000 of the 5,000, and the other 3,500 have opted into this new programme. Therefore, we can see there is some demand from those who had their licences to proceed.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What does Mr. Delany think will be planted this year? From 2020 to the end of last year, the Department has not achieved one year’s worth of the targets. That is a damning statement for any Department. One year is 8,000 ha and it has not achieved that from 2020 to 2024. I accept that may be for different reasons, for example, new legislation was brought in and so on. However, down the road, the devil will bite us in the backside because we will not have planted what we were supposed to plant and in 20 years’ time, we will not have the offsetting with regard to what we need. What is the figure the Department thinks will be planted for this year? Will we reach 8,000 ha, despite the other figures of 5,000 ha and 2000 ha?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know that.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
The level of planting depends entirely on the demand for the scheme. We have created a scheme that we think is attractive but it is in its infancy. If the Deputy is asking me if I think we will plant 8,000 ha of trees this year, I would say it is extremely unlikely unless there is an explosion of demand.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What does the Department expect?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
The licensing plan, which I do have a slight difficulty with, refers to 4,200 ha, but that depends on individual landowners and farmers deciding they want to apply. That is where we are. There is a target there, and it is important to have an ambitious target for the sector going forward. If we did not have ambitious targets, I imagine we would be criticised for that.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would Mr. Gleeson be worried at the moment? This committee has dealt with the issue and we have watched it every year. It is past April and we have gone into May. There is probably another month of planting as people will not be planting in June, July or August. Is Mr Gleeson worried that only 392 ha are coming in at the moment? Is he worried we would not increase on last year?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
You might, but these are the figures.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will tell Mr. Gleeson why the Department is not getting enough applicants in. From 2018, 2019 or 2020, farmers were waiting and waiting and they went into GLAS and other schemes because they could see money coming and did not have to wait for the postman to come with something. I understand that some of that was due to challenges and so on. Mr. Gleeson spoke about a review. I did a review of the habitats directive and I would have been as well off if I had gone home counting cattle, although maybe the Department would get a better result from a review. I did a review that dealt with all of the different countries in Europe and nothing came of it. The fact is that until they change the environmental rules, farmers will not be planting. Mr. Gleeson should get that into his head.
It is for the simple reason that the 30 cm rule is going to get rid of a heap of land. People will then go to a higher quality of land that a tillage person or a dairy person would also be looking for because of the derogation. Mr. Gleeson is over all of the Department and he knows that is what a derogation farmer is looking for. As the price of bullocks has gone up, those people will need a bit more land. The tillage person is looking for it. There is huge pressure on land. Anyone who thinks the Department is going to increase those figures without dropping some of the environmental measures is wrong.
Is democracy gone? Would it be different if there was a different Europe after the next election? I saw that this year they were able to change parts of the CAP because farmers started protesting in different countries. I think they should have reduced the paperwork a lot more for farmers along the line.
I am being honest here. When you talk to farmers on the ground, given what went on over the last number of years in the Department, they have no faith in it. Mr. Gleeson talks about educating them. Farmers know about the trees and about the acre or the hectare. I will give an example. In most of the west of Ireland where someone would plant a lock of trees, there would be a bit of peaty stuff, so it is not going to happen because people would have to go through all of the rigours again. The Department needs to switch out of the hopeful zone. We are four years coming in here and we are hearing the same story about forestry. I understand fully that the Department cannot plant the trees and it can only give licences, but forestry is such a poisoned thing at the moment, given what went on with the people.
I used a chainsaw in Glenhest in County Mayo and I cut the finest timber. A long time ago, when the first timber machines came out, you had to brash it up for the 6 ft. and the finest of timber came out of there. Today, you cannot plant a tree on it because of the environmental regulations. What we have done is that we have dropped down the areas that we can plant on. The Chairman has brought this up several times, as have other members. We have left it such that people are competing for ground that others want. There is not a hope in hell. I would like to Mr Gleeson to comment on that. That is coming from the ground. That is being honest. I am not saying it is Mr. Gleeson's fault. I am just saying it is a major problem coming down the line.
With regard to carbon credits, the farmer owns the forestry. Does the farmer own the carbon credits that will be on that or who is going to take the benefit of them?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I will deal with the first part first. The Deputy made a very wide-ranging statement and I am not sure I am going to get into the political stuff on democracy in Europe and so on. I am also trying to be straight-up here. I come in here and I have to present the facts. I cannot deal in aspirations or how things might be or should be in different circumstances.
We have state aid rules in the European Union. State aid rules are necessary for the protection of the Single Market and they mean everyone is playing on a level playing field across Europe. Ireland, by a country mile, is the biggest beneficiary of the Single Market. Agriculture in Ireland would be dead without the Single Market. It would not be dead without the CAP because it would survive in some way, but without the Single Market, it would be dead. State aid rules are there for the protection of the Single Market.
We provide grants to people to plant trees and, therefore, we need state aid approval. The conditions that are part of the new package were part of the conditionality for the state aid approval of the Irish forestry programme. That is the way it is.
You can argue the merits of that and what it does in the context of the complexity of the licensing process, but-----
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can I ask one question on that in passing to save us returning to it later? Would the recent announcement by the EPA that our peatland is now emitting 60% less-----
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, 60%-----
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----have a bearing on the environmental conditions that were set when we looked for state aid, given that our European colleagues and friends set them on the basis of the original EPA figures?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
Deputy Fitzmaurice probably knows more about peat emissions than I do. I cannot answer the question. What I can say, however, is that we went through a tortuous process, first with DG COMP, the competent authority for state aid approvals. That body does an interservice consultation, and that consultation went to DG Environment. I cannot say how many meetings and exchanges we had with DG Environment. Eventually, we came out with an approval that had the conditionality in question attached. From the directorate-general's perspective, this is the minimum required to make sure that Irish forestry meets all the relevant environmental conditions. We have a commercial sector here that might say this represents a complication in producing commercial timber. There is a Teagasc report on emissions from peatland, but I believe it relates to the assumption that peatland under agricultural use is completely drained. The Teagasc analysis concluded that some of the drains have not been cleared for quite a number of years, meaning the emissions from the land in question might be lower than might have been anticipated. However, I do not believe that would have changed the argument on forestry. When this is reviewed in 2025, it is a matter that we will consider, but I urge caution in that it is the Commission that wants the review in 2025 and to make sure we are meeting all the environmental requirements. Therefore, I do not want to give the idea that we can have a review and come out with something much easier. That is not the way things are viewed in DG Environment. We will have to go through the interservice consultation again.
I absolutely accept Deputy Fitzmaurice's sincerity and his view. However, I cannot come in here and talk about aspirations; I have to come in and talk about the facts as I know them to be. The facts are that we went through a tortuous process to get approval and came out with what I believe is a very generous package. However, that package comes with conditions attached, and that is what we are going to have to-----
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There was another question.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
There is a long section in my brief that deals with it, but I am not going to read it out. The State does not claim to own carbon credits. Since this is a complex matter, I could read three pages here and the Deputy would think I was talking nonsense. We do not have a system of carbon farming in this country yet. A system is being developed and that will have to establish some sort of framework for certifying emissions reduction and carbon credits for people. It will also have to determine how they are traded. From the State's point of view, it is critical when talking about national emissions reduction that we can count emissions that occur on this island. They have to be counted here. It is up to the farmer if a company wants to pay him something for ESG or give some other benefit, but we have to ensure that if there is an emissions reduction in forestry, we can include it as part of the overall emissions reduction. It is not a question of ownership but of how to account for emissions. Maybe that is not a satisfactory answer, but there are things we have to figure out. There is a carbon-farming framework being developed at EU level, and it is complicated stuff. The State does not claim it owns carbon credits and will not be trading carbon credits from forestry, but we need to be able to count carbon reductions in our inventory so we can say that, overall, the State has reduced emissions by X.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Secretary General and his team for being with us today. He is a refreshing and interesting Secretary General because of the frankness and honesty of his responses. I genuinely believe that and wanted to put it on the record.
We are all realists here and are blue in the face talking forestry. We have disproportionately spent the past four years talking about forestry. Deputy Fitzmaurice is right that between 2020 and 2024, no targets were been reached. The Government is on its way out. I will not say it is banjaxed but it is certainly on its way out and it will be only a matter of weeks before we see the final wake-up call for some politicians around Leinster House. It is inevitable that there will be a change of Government within months. The current Government has not delivered. A key plank of its strategy was its forestry strategy and we have heard many platitudes and comments on what was happening or was not and on interim systems. We could not get Ministers in here or get accountability from anybody, so I thank the Secretary General for his engagement with us today.
There are two sides to this. We all know that Ireland's forestry strategy for the period from now to 2030 has to be delivered upon with regard to the national forestry estate, public and private. There is an important reason I refer to both public and private: we see two different strategies, two different strands and two different sets of motivations. In many cases, the private sector has felt absolutely blackguarded and frustrated in the process. I have gone to forestry in Wicklow and even in the Dublin mountains and have seen Coillte forestry and private forestry. I have noted the time lag between the two. There is no rationale for this. There is no explanation, other than a comment to the effect that it is being processed. It is very frustrating for people who have invested heavily to see all the delays in the process. That is an important point to make. While we need to recognise climate change and biodiversity, it is ultimately about yielding timber for production. That is the number one priority above everything else. It has got to be economic, sustainable and producing timber. Therefore, the implementation is really important.
The Secretary General referred to confidence. In many ways, I do not see a sense of urgency or emergency in Coillte. It just strums along. There is no one kicking it if it does not deliver, but the private sector has lost all confidence. Forestry is in crisis, despite any Minister in Agriculture House telling us otherwise. It has been a disaster. The Government has been in office for four and half years and has not succeeded; it is as simple as that. The figures stack up in this regard. The Secretary General is more certain and will be around for a hell of a lot longer than any politician in Agriculture House, certainly those in this Administration, so he can think more strategically and long term, based on succession and continuity of policy and delivery in his Department.
The licensed planting targets will not be met. In this regard, let us not cod or fool ourselves. The Secretary General has more or less said it already. He has said we have to set ambitious targets. Of course we do, but I am asking him to set realistic targets. Based on all our experience, we simply have not delivered. The Secretary General and I know that it is May and that there will be no planting in June, July or August. We know the planting time is short and that we will not deliver. Let us put our hands up today and say we are not going to deliver despite having all the targets we like.
What is the Department going to do to inspire confidence and incentivise people? The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine held detailed discussions with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to agree the grant and premium rates for the new forestry programme, the new strategy. Mr. Gleeson might share some information on the deliberations with that Department and on the agreement reached. The document in respect of which I have a briefing note states incentivisation was one of the key issues Mr. Gleeson raised with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. He stated that we have got to incentivise if we are to deliver on the levels of planting necessary for Ireland to meet its afforestation targets. Those are his words, not mine. I am not privy to the outcome of all the discussions, but this is really important. The strategy was considered in detail by the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform under its public spending code.
Will Mr. Gleeson share a little bit of the outcome of that? How does he think they got a better deal with regard to incentivising the public and private in respect of forestry planting? Can he share a little bit of his engagement with the Department on that issue?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
First, the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform has a job to do. Sometimes I feel that it has become kind of unfashionable to talk about affordability and managing the public purse, but that is my job and it is the job of that Department. In the context of any programme, you have to seek sanction from the Minister for public expenditure and reform. That is just part of the deal. It is the same with ACRES and every other scheme we run. We run it through that prism and the Department of public expenditure looks at it in terms of value for money. In the context of this programme – I hope somebody can help me with the figures – the increases in funding in premiums range between 46% and 66%, depending on the type of tree planted.
Another thing is we got an extra five years for farmers. Up to this point, they only got 15 years' premium. We wanted to differentiate between farmers, who are the primary landowners in Ireland, and other investors, so we got an extra five years’ premium for farmers. I mentioned some of the figures in my opening speech and I do not want to repeat stuff. One can see that a farmer who planted 8 ha of native forest can get €253,000. That is made up of €80,000 in grants for forest establishment and fencing and €176,000 in premiums over 20 years. Bear in mind, those converting agricultural land to forestry continue to get their basic income support payment. That figure excludes that and it excludes the tax-free income one gets from thinnings and harvesting. Those are dramatic increases in grant rates and they are needed. I think people will move with the economics, in some sectors. Dairy farmers probably will not convert to forestry but they might be able to convert part of their land to forestry. There are probably mixed farms that have underutilised parts of their land that could be converted to forestry. I accept what Deputy Fitzmaurice said about the environmental restrictions making that more difficult. However, regarding confidence, this is a 20-year programme and a 20-year investment, and the returns are good.
To be frank, if we keep talking it down, we will succeed. From our point of view, we have to start providing people with accurate information so they can make choices, and there are various ways of making this happen. For example, one extreme mechanism could be to stop other subsidies and put it all into forestry, which has been suggested in some quarters. However, that is not the national policy. The national policy is to give farmers a choice. They can join an environmental scheme and join organics. They can plant trees, get premiums and join organics, and still get their basic income support payment. I do not think we are communicating that very well. Perhaps no matter what we do, people will not engage with it. However, I think they will engage.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I wish to wrap up because I am conscious of time. I ask for tight, concise responses.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In the simple terms of “Yes” or “No”, does Mr. Gleeson believe there are enough incentives?
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that sufficient to bring the private sector in?
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Gleeson is confident it will.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I am confident it will. If the Senator asked me if I am confident we will meet 8,000 ha this year, our own licensing plan is 4,200 ha. We have calibrated our licensing plan. However, even the licensing plan depends on interest from farmers. I think these figures stack up and we need to get better at explaining the options to people.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As Mr. Gleeson rightly said, the Department does not plan trees, but it can assist through promotion, engagement and incentivisation. I will just park that with Mr. Gleeson.
To wrap up, the nine-month process is too long. Does the Department have sufficient resources to bring that back to six to nine months, ideally six months? It is far too long. We are talking about instilling confidence in people. Are there any plans to tighten that up? Is it a resource issue? Why is it taking nine months? Can Mr. Gleeson explain that to us?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I cannot go through the intricacies of the process because I am not familiar with all of it. However, for example, you have to do two 30-day periods of public consultation at various ends of the process. Before you even do any work, there are 60 days of public consultation to be done. You have to consult with other Government Departments. You have to inspect the site and do an appropriate assessment. More than 80% of our cases have to be appropriately assessed. I would rather be clear that if a person applies and is put into appropriate assessment, that person will have a license in nine months. This is a long-term investment for people. I do not think saying that nine months is a barrier is the right messaging. The right messaging is that this is a long-term investment, the rewards are good and it is complementary to the farm enterprise, not something to substitute for it. Having a clear and reliable period within which a person will get a license is far more important than me coming here and making a promise that I cannot keep.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
To wrap up, I refer to the native tree area scheme. In the strategy, it stated these were subject to the completion of the SEA, the AA and the consultation processes. Is that all sorted out now?
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
To get by or to facilitate?
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will there be an interim review of that?
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are their many inquiries about it? It sounds like a good scheme. As Mr. Gleeson said, it is a gateway to forestry. It struck me as a reasonable first-step approach and gateway into forestry. What is the uptake?
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Mr. Gleeson pleased with that or would he like more?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
We would like more. We think it is a good option for people. It does not intrude on the farm enterprise and it might be good for riparian zones and protecting water. As I said, the process of approval is very simple. One can get up to €22,000 over the period, which is ten years.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will finish on that. It is a good scheme and I welcome it. I do not think enough people fully understand it. It is a bit like taking the roadshows out, getting out, engaging, using Teagasc or whatever agricultural shows. The word “simplification” is always used but I think if it is simplified, it is a good scheme. As Mr. Gleeson rightly said, it is a gateway into forestry. I wish it well.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome the witnesses before us. Following on from the conversation on the native tree scheme and the 250 ha uptake, would that be 250 applicants? How many applicants are we talking about?
Mr. Barry Delany:
We have 216 applicants for 232 ha. Some parties would do native tree area scheme 1, which is a block of 1 ha in the corner of a field or wherever they wish to plant, and there is native tree area scheme 2, which is riparian planting. Some farmers can plant up to 2 ha of native tree area scheme, in effect getting €44,000 over the ten-year period.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a ten-year programme. After that, the native woodland is a permanent fixture; it will not be moved at any level. I think the barrier for many of these schemes is fear that one cannot go to another farming enterprise at another time. The barrier I come across seems to be that internal fear within the community and how we deal with it and work with that issue. I ask Mr. Gleeson’s view of that issue. Does he think we need to, in many ways, look at the permanent fixture issue with regard even to schemes involving native trees?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
We agonised over that a good bit.
It is not a new issue. In the context of the native tree area scheme, the fact is one can plant in the corners of fields and along margins. The scheme need not intrude, even if it is permanent, on the farm enterprise. There are agroforestry options for people so they can continue farming in the field and plant trees at a much looser density and that is an attractive option for farmers.
Regarding the permanence, I get that. It is a permanent land use change but what we cannot have is deforestation. I hear the view expressed that this is not going to happen because if the forest is there for 25 or 30 years, it will be replanted. That is not the case, however. What we will end up with is deforestation if we allow forests to be removed once they are harvested. If we do that, the State will have invested in an asset that is intended to contribute to mitigating our climate change burden and it goes in 30 years' time. We just cannot do that. Then you are stuck. You have to replant, you do not get premium in the second period and you will get the benefit then at harvesting time and thinning time. That is the commercial opportunity for the second rotation. We have to think about whether there are ways to generate a more continuous income from that transaction. There might be ways of developing equity or loan schemes, for example, that will pay an income every year and then at harvest time it will be some kind of a repayment of the funding paid through the second rotation.
I am thinking out loud here, which is a very dangerous thing, but it is something we have been thinking about. That barrier to the second rotation may need to be resolved with some kind of an imaginative way of-----
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will not be looking at premiums for the second rotation. Have we kind of closed the door on that?
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What Mr. Gleeson is basically saying here is if this was to happen, funds would be offloaded that could be drawn back in time when the harvest comes.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I am obviously being too frank here but there must be ways of doing that. We cannot get to a situation where we do not require replanting. We will end up with deforestation if we do that. One of the barriers is that period where one does not get premiums and is waiting for harvesting to get some kind of reward. If we could crack that in some imaginative way, it would be helpful.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If you look at the graph, the Department is going to have a considerable amount of forestry coming its way in the next decade in particular that will actually be up for felling, and making sure we have that incentive to do something is really important.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
To be clear about it, people will harvest, and they will have to replant. That is the requirement. What I am talking about - I do not have the answer, to be clear about it - is something that incentivises new planting. I think that is what the Senator is talking about. These people are already in the system and they have committed to doing this. It is a legal requirement. However, we could develop a mechanism for some kind of more constant reward through the second rotation. It could be some kind of a loan or something like that where the-----
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Like carbon credits.
Mr. Barry Delany:
We are about to launch, with regard to climate-resilient reforestation, a pilot scheme whereby people will be paid per hectare for the following seven years if they go back in with continuous cover forestry or agree to manage their reforested site in a particular way. I will share the details with the committee as soon as we approve that. I hope that will be in the next week or two.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We have two issues. One is the replanting obligation and making sure it happens. The other is to try to get our 8,000 ha harvested, which is a significant issue. Obviously, we have to start somewhere with the programme. Nobody believes that we are going to get 8,000 ha in year 1. This is a graph of some nature. I am not sure if it is going to be a flat graph and I am not even sure it is going to be rising. We are going to be working towards a target that we ensure we can reach over the lifetime of the agreement.
When we went to Europe last September, it became very obvious that forestry is not a competency of Europe. We were told it is a strategy. However, they were very strict on us in that environmental impact is their competency. The officials to whom we spoke were very clear that they have no input regarding our national forestry strategy but that the environmental impacts are absolutely key to it. The four of us at that meeting were fearful of what the Commission's view on environmental impacts was going to mean for agriculture, forestry and fishing. It seemed a little bit out of control. It seemed to be that our targets are our targets but environmental impact is the first thing in mind. Can Mr. Gleeson give an insight into how we can look at how the Commission looks at these issues? As one of those four Members of the Oireachtas - I am not speaking for all four of us - I was at a loss, basically, that there was no logic brought into this one. They were quite happy, in many ways, for us to not reach our actual forestry targets and other issues regarding our agriculture industry because it was environment first, and that was it.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I do not know who the Senator was talking to, and I know he does not expect me to bash the Commission, which would not be in the best interests of Ireland or the Department of agriculture, but their perspective is that there is a legal framework agreed by member states. Member states agreed the law at European Union level. It is done between the Council, the Parliament and the Commission. It is a co-decision procedure now, and we have a habitats directive and a water framework directive, and that is the law. Overlayered with that, they will look at our record on peat soils and emissions, the commitments that are made to cut emissions, and how well member states across the European Union are doing with regard to cutting emissions. That is a legitimate perspective.
I can tell the Senator that for every person who thinks that the conditions of this programme are too onerous, there is a person who thinks they are not half onerous enough. That is in Ireland; you do not have to go to the European Union to get that. We went through a period when every single forestry licence was being appealed, and we are going through a period now when we have massive numbers of AIEs, which are like FOIs for forestry. We have massive numbers of AIEs coming from a very small number of individuals about our forestry applications. This is contested stuff and people are coming at it from various angles. They all have legitimate views and we have to try to strike a balance.
On top of the regulatory framework at European Union level, we had to get state aid approval. The state aid approval was used as a vehicle to apply conditionality to our scheme. In essence, we were told we were being given permission to spend funding on forestry and to support it but it comes with conditionality. They have used the legal framework and the state aid approval mechanism. They have their own legitimate views on what conditionality should be applied here. That is the reality of what we are dealing with, and I understand that people have different views on the legal framework. However, I would just say that laws at European Union level do not come down from heaven. They are agreed by members states and ministers. They are proposed by the Commission, and there is co-decision with the Parliament. All of those elements go into making laws at European Union level. They are not imposed on us. We might not like the balance of whatever emerges from a very complex negotiation. Sometimes we do not like it, and sometimes we do. Sometimes we exert significant influence, and sometimes we exert less influence but that is the way the system works. I would not want this to turn into a session where we say the Commission is the root of all evil. It operates on the basis of a legal framework that is agreed by member states.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. Regarding our targets, how we are going to try to reach them and how we are going to turn the tables, Mr. Gleeson mentioned that there will be information and education programmes with the involvement of the farming community, and maybe even outside the farming community, to get investors involved. We are eight or nine months into the programme at this stage.
Will Mr. Delany give me a flavour of what he thinks this information programme will be about? What does the Department plan to do? What cohort of farmers and industry will the Department deal with? Will private equity be used? Where will we get the investors and the farmers? Will it be dairy, beef, tillage or sheep farmers? Where does Mr. Delany think the focus should be, both on the full programme and on the native programme that was only at 260-plus people? Will Mr. Delany give me an indication of where we are or what the plan will be for the next six months?
Mr. Barry Delany:
I thank the Senator. The Department has already approved more than €1 million worth of promotional programmes. They are forestry companies and other individuals who will promote the forest programme. Some of it has started already and we will see those coming through. A lot of those are local and regional events. From the Department's point of view we will work with Teagasc on national events. We had a very strong presence at the ploughing match last year and will do the same this year. Approximately two weeks ago, every Irish Farmers' Journal put out contained our farm forestry booklet outlining the figures and showing that forestry is an attractive option to consider, particularly when looking at the figures and stacking that up with the Teagasc farm forestry income survey in terms of where that was pitched.
The Department hopes to work closely with the IFA and Forest Industries Ireland to stand shoulder to shoulder in fields with farmers explaining to them what is possible. It is that aspect of farmers telling farmers that it has worked and we find when the Irish Forest Owners, IFO, and the Irish Timber Growers Association, ITGA - the farming organisations who have planted forest - speak to their neighbours, they are the ones who will plant as opposed to the Department trying to tell them. The Department is trying to facilitate that local engagement.
In addition to that there will be a national campaign. We had the advertising campaigns on the radio but will do a much more targeted campaign around the native tree area scheme, the forest type 1 - the native species, and forest type 12 - the commercial plantation. Mr. Gleeson, the Secretary General, has shown me the figures and it is an attractive option for a mid-sized farmer to help complement income.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Delany not think we need to do more? For example, we have a huge discussion group on many different farming topics from agriculture to tillage to beef. The discussion groups meet monthly. Should the Department not intervene here and say it needs to have an engagement with all these people who meet once per month on a farm? All of a sudden the Department would meet a cohort of farmers on an actual farm. Tens of thousands of farmers attend Teagasc events at Moorepark. Yes, they are probably dairy farmers but on the other side there are probably people who could have an interest in an investment that could be in forestry. Do we need to change our approach and look at a different way of engaging with the 130,000 farmers out there? Foresters speaking to foresters is one thing but do we need to look at the other farmers out there, probably 120,000 of them?
Mr. Barry Delany:
I completely agree. That is the point in terms of we are trying to reach out beyond forestry advisers to deal with agriculture advisers such as the Agriculture Consultants Association and the Teagasc non-forestry advisers as well. All of the knowledge transfer group, KTG, schemes now are obliged to have an element of forestry in them under the new CAP strategic plan, CSP. They are obliged to have a module on forestry.
Mr. Barry Delany:
Apologies, Senator it is a knowledge transfer group. With regard to Moorepark, Teagasc has planted the native tree area scheme in Moorepark and is hoping to have a number of open days in order to show dairy farmers what is possible. They have planted the riparian strip by the stream at the back of the buildings and have planted a block as well. To see that in action will be exactly the point when Teagasc has the open day. The Department will try to have a presence at Grange when it has its open day. It is having a presence at the dairy, tillage and beef shows as well. The Department is putting resources towards that and is working closely with Teagasc to really promote that.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
This is key to this. If any ideas emerge from the committee, the Department would like to hear them because we do not have a closed mind on this. It is a specifically called-out part of the action plan on the programme but if the Department can do this better - because we have not done a good job on it up until now - we would be open to any ideas that come from the committee on this.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I hope I am not next in line to Senator Lombard the day he decides he will not be brief. Nearly everything has been covered. I have a couple of hypothetical questions. I know the answer Mr. Gleeson will possibly give, which will be that it is a political decision. We all know and we all admit that at this stage we need solutions. It is not about how we got to where we are. We will not touch 8,000 ha for the foreseeable future. We are talking about trying to get people in and we see the drop-off. A lot of people applied when their licences got held up in the backlog and who have totally changed their minds and will not sow trees.
To get them back, for talk's sake and this is where Mr. Gleeson does not give the answer that it would be a political decision, if we decided to reduce our target to 6,000 ha, that may be achievable. Mr. Gleeson said the money is there and it is based on 8,000 ha. We said we will spend the same money. We would be reducing our target by 25% so we would be upping the premiums for everything by 25%. Does that mean going back to state aid rules and could the conditionality change? I am speaking hypothetically. Am I speaking stupidly or it is something that realistically could be looked at?
If we reached 6,000 ha and held 6,000 ha consistently going forward I think it would be a great achievement from where we are at the moment. We have to bear in mind, going forward, and I do not if any contingencies are being done in the Department that look way forward, we will not have timber in 20 years and we are supposed to be trying to expand the use of timber in timber frame houses. Even in the shorter term, how will we square the circle of our net zero calculation and balance sheet where 8,000 ha was built in on one side of that ledger and we now all know we will not touch 8,000 ha. That balance sheet must be balanced also. How will we do that? Is there any contingency plan or any forward looking being done at that? Serious changes will have to be made to balance the under-achievement of what was put into that calculation of 8,000 ha.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If the Minister said to this to Mr. Gleeson in the morning, would he then be flagging to the Minister that this is a great idea and would maybe get us up and running? I am asking if we have to go back to Europe on the state aid rules. Could we do that if the Minister or Government were to change their policy and targets? Could we just do it here or would we end up going back for more state aid rules negotiations and possibly or potentially more conditionality?
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Were the sums built around it? Why did state aid kick in-----
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are going to have approximately 400 ha of trees maturing in 2050 that were sowed this year.
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
We could. Right now, we do not have a target for land use as part of our national climate plan. We do not have a target for emissions from land as opposed to agricultural activity. In Ireland, land is a net emitter because of the significance of our peatlands that are drained and in agricultural use. The Senator mentioned the Teagasc work on the assessment of emissions from peatlands earlier. That will have an impact on the calculations of net emissions from land use in Ireland. That is something we have to take into account. It is clear that there are two ways to mitigate emissions from land. One is by changing the water table on peatlands and the other is by planting trees. One way or another, we have to plant lots of trees if we are to get next or near a net zero target by 2050, unless some dramatic new technology comes along that I cannot and do not predict. If someone were to say to me that we should resile from these targets, I would say to be careful because we have to at least have the ambition to get to net zero by 2050. That means we have to plant as many trees as we can between now and 2050.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does the Department not agree with the theory of incentivising? Were we to reach 6,000 ha, that would be an achievement in itself.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
But what if we do not achieve it? I think 6,000 ha is better than having a target of 8,000 ha and not achieving it. I am asking the hypothetical question while it is a political decision, not Mr. Gleeson's decision, I would like to get his opinion.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is not what they tell us.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a couple more questions. The witness kept saying "the Minister" and "the Minister" but every Department tells the Minister what A, B and C is. It is not a Minister who goes into the Department and states we are going to do 8,000 ha next year. It is the information the officials put together and they advise. Is that not right?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I hope this does not sound like I am stepping away from my own responsibilities, because I am not. Ministers of course make decisions based on a variety of facts, including what they hear on the ground, the people they represent and what they hear from civil servants. All of those things go into, I would imagine, ministerial decisions but I do not resile from my own obligations.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
All right. There is one thing in your forestry policy guides that probably never came up to the witnesses previously. We are seeing more and more of it, even on plantations, that is, ESB wires. Why is there not a policy set? Would it be fair to say that after 30 years, a spruce tree will grow to 75 ft, probably some of them are around that, or maybe 80 ft? Why is there not a 30 m setback from wires? I know of one part of the country, around Roosky, where for six weeks the power was off and on. It was not the ESB's fault. Trees falling was the problem. Why is ensuring that set-back not part of the Department's policy? There is a requirement to be 10 m or 20 m back from wires but I believe the Department has to re-examine that as part of the overall policy.
On the issue of emissions and the country, Mr. Gleeson stated that agriculture is a net emitter but no hedgerows have been included in what we have done.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Hedgerows are sitting on the land.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The same as trees.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does the witness understand what I am saying?
Mr. Brendan Gleeson:
I do but I am pretty certain that no matter what is included, because of the significant emissions from drained peat lands, land in Ireland is a net emitter even if hedgerows are included. Not all land is a net emitter, because drained mineral soils are a net sequesterer for example. But the net balance is that land is a net emitter. I am not the best person to say that but I think-----
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will give Mr. Gleeson a few facts from a Teagasc document if he likes. According to our inventory up to now, peat was emitting 7.3 million tonnes. Teagasc has now done the research. It is getting it peer reviewed and it is down to 3.3 million tonnes or 3.4 million tonnes. That is a fair bit of a reduction. On top of that, we have not studied what grass, hedgerows and all the different things are emitting, or if grass was let grow and there was no stock.
There are two reports that might be worth anyone's while looking at, one from America and one from Scotland, to the effect that ruminants are actually an advantage. These reports have been done by scientists and the reports say that ruminants are an advantage to the whole climate thing instead of the opposite, which is what has been said up to now. It might be worthwhile for the witnesses to read those reports. I think one was actually on one of the apps in the last few days.
I ask Mr. Delany to look at the policy about moving the trees back from the ESB wires. While there is a major problem when electricity supply goes out, it also is costing a ferocious amount of money. It could be part of the forestry strategy or regulation or whatever it is called.
Mr. Barry Delany:
I thank the Deputy. The distance depends on the voltage. In certain cases it is 20 m, in other cases it is up to 30 m, 40 m, 50 m or 60 m. I will share that with the Deputy but I know there has been some issues in terms of maintenance where trees have fallen on the lines. They were just too close and they have not been maintained. It is part of their licensing conditions when they plant how far they set back and they work with the ESB as well in terms of that. In terms of the existing set-backs, it is actually the maintenance of the plantation that really causes the issues here in the later years. I take the point, however.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Regardless of voltage, I would never be on about voltage because if the two wires that are going along on a low-volt line are knocked, it takes out the whole thing. Would the Chair agree?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will make a couple of points before finishing up. Mr. Gleeson hit the nail on the head when he talked about the length of the premiums. Farmers are making decisions and are probably thinking of the next generation coming after them. We talked about native planting and native forests. While the figure looks attractive, the reality is after 20 years, they are going to be waiting an awful long time for any other payday. Until we address that issue, that there will be a long-term payment strategy for land, farmers are not going to make the decision to afforest. We are trying to afforest better-quality land at the moment due to various restrictions. As for the attractiveness of leasing land over a period of five, ten or 15 years, anyone who sits down and does his or her sums is taking that option, rather than looking at afforestation. While there are premiums worth €176,000 over 20 years, if you equate getting €250 an acre for land on leasing and you are getting the money tax free and you are not making a life- changing decision with the land, that is one of the principal reasons there is no decision to be made as to whether to afforest at the moment.
I spoke at a forestry seminar in the RDS on Thursday and I brought up the blanket ban on afforestation in designated areas, unenclosed land and peatland. That needs to be looked at. A lot of environmental people are coming around to the view that a blanket ban is not helping to create the intended habitats. There were figures at that conference surrounding the hen harrier population. I talk about the hen harrier because there is a lot of land in my own county designated because of the hen harrier. Where there is a blanket ban at the moment, the hen harrier population is dropping. In another part, in the Slieve Felim mountains where the hen harrier is to be found as well and where there is plenty of forestation, the hen harrier population is actually increasing. If we are to get availability of forestry land, we have to look at these blanket bans and see whether they are achieving what we set to achieve with them. If we could dilute the blanket ban, would we make more land available for planting? That needs to be looked at. As I said, it is not just landowners who are saying this now. A lot of environmentalists are coming around to that view as well. Those two things need to be seriously looked at, namely, income post the 20 year period and that blanket ban.
As the competition for better-quality arable land is so intense at the moment, it is going to be well-nigh impossible for forestry to compete. We have seen the price of land rising dramatically in the past 12 to 18 months and that is making the purchase of land for forestry virtually uneconomical. We all want to see Ireland meeting our targets and, as Mr. Gleeson made the point, we are trying to reach equilibrium for emissions. We cannot do it without forestry.
We have to think outside the box. Carbon credits might be a way of doing it going forward but farmers will want to see that in black and white before they make a decision to afforest. I also urge the Department to look at the blanket ban in place. It has taken an awful lot of land out of the equation. I am not saying that in the morning you would plant 100% of designated land but perhaps over a period, every five years, a percentage could be planted to give different stages of afforestation growth in those areas. There is growing evidence to show that will benefit habitats, rather than hinder them. Those are a few points I would like to make. We have had a long session this evening.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I recall a TD who is now Minister asking me how we could get more trees planted. Some people call a ditch a drain but we call it up the way claí. Years ago, people planted trees down along in a line. They were lovely. In the eighties, a lot of them were got rid of. We all know that but there are still a lot of hedgerows. In my head, an acre is 1,000 trees. Why is there not a scheme for farmers who plant 1,000 native trees along their ditches? That would tick a box for the Department to comply with this stuff Europe is driving along the line, of hectares and sequestration. A lot of farmers would go for such a scheme. Why is that not one of the measures the Department is going for? When I was a youngster, which is a while ago, down at the corner of our field, there was what we called a shelterbelt. It would stop the sun in the summer. Cattle were out then in the winter and it would stop the breeze. That is gone now. I know you can do parts of that now but I am talking about down along by the ditch. What is that not allowed, if someone wanted to do it? If they sowed 1,000 trees, it could take up all their farm. Why are they not allowed? I am throwing the idea out. The Department may look at it.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not think you can get it under the native tree scheme. That is the problem. I am on about one tree. You cannot go taking up fields. There is a ditch and you could sow a side of it or along the ditch. It was done years ago. Does the Chair agree? It would not affect the farming. It was ticking the box the Department required. It was bringing more native trees in. It did a lot. When those trees grow, they are lovely.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will the Department look at it?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The next public meeting of the committee is at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 15 May when the committee will examine collection and recycling of farm plastic.