Written Answers. - Afforestation Programme.
Trevor Sargent
Question:
136
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
whether his attention has been drawn to a recent article (details supplied) which suggests that money spent on the massive programme of monocultural conifer afforestation which has been underwritten by the State cannot be justified when account is taken of a range of costs and consequences including environmental ones; the proposals, if any, he has to alter, amend or modify the mandate of Coillte Teoranta in view of these findings; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[15871/98]
Trevor Sargent
Question:
137
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
whether, in view of an analysis recently published (details supplied) which concludes that, on purely economic criteria, the sums invested and underwritten by the State in monocultural conifer afforestation would be better spent on more environmentally friendly forestry using native species; the plans, if any, his Department has to review and reverse the mix of 80 per cent exotic conifer to 20 per cent broadleaf in the State's forestry programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[15872/98]
Trevor Sargent
Question:
138
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
if, in view of recent survey findings which confirm that Ireland is bottom of the list in terms of the development of its broadeaf woodland resource, he will outline the plans, if any, he has to augment the resources available to organisations which exist, particularly to redress this imbalance, through programmes of awareness building and public education; the plans, if any, he has to consult with a national voluntary organisation (details supplied) which has considerable experience and expertise in the field of broadleaf afforestation with a view to developing a programme of broadleaf woodland development; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[15873/98]
Trevor Sargent
Question:
142
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
whether his attention has been drawn to a European Commission Report, No 2080/92, which has categorised Irish forestry policy as being one of the least environmentally conscious of those surveyed, giving insufficient weighting to environmental objectives and which has faulted Ireland as the country that availed of environmentally damaging exotic species, for example Sitka spruce, at a rate totally out of line with all other EU countries; and if, in view of that finding, he has considered reversing the mix of 80 per cent conifer to 20 per cent broadleaf which currently informs the national forestry strategy and the operational programme of Coillte Teoranta; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[15877/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 136, 137, 138 and 142 together.
I am aware of the article referred to by the Deputy. This is a synopsis of a research project, Irish Forestry Policy: A Cost Benefit Analysis, which has yet to be published. The forest service has many reservations and concerns in relation to the structure, parameters and assumptions used in the study and will be commenting in due course when the study is published. I cannot agree with the Deputy's summary of the report's conclusions. The study actually finds "that the Strategic Plan passes a cost benefit test when its discount rate is 5 per cent or less. This suggests that the programme is socially efficient". The article does not contain any matter which has not already been addressed, at greater depth, in Growing for the Future, the Government approved strategic plan for the development of the forestry sector in Ireland.
As the plan points out, the estimated real rate of return on investment in forestry is 5 per cent including land costs and exclusive of grants and subsidies. It also indicates that a comparison of results for forestry and agriculture was made both including and excluding the current subsidies to forestry and agriculture. Excluding subsidies, forestry clearly gives a higher return than agricultural activities apart from dairying.
I have no proposal to alter, amend or modify the mandate of Coillte Teoranta as a result of the article referred to. While I accept that Ireland's broadleaf cover is relatively low in comparison with other EU member states the strategic plan referred to above clearly sets out the objective of increased diversification of species in Irish forestry today and the planting of broadleaves is critical to the successful implementation of the plan.
In this regard the current grant and premium schemes include a new category called 20 per cent diverse which will result in all sites to be planted having at least 20 per cent of a second species; the elimination of the existing non-diverse category which effectively ends the practices of monoculture or single species planting sites; a supplement to the loss of income premium payable to farmers who plant a better quality land. Moving a better quality land will improve the opportunities for the planting of more diverse conifer species and broadleaves; an emphasis on the traditional Irish continental model of broadleaf planting which entails a higher diversity of plants per hectare in order to improve timber quality. The grant levels have been adjusted to reflect the higher costs which the modification entails.
I am aware of the voluntary organisation referred to by the Deputy and my Department has grant aided a range of projects promoting the concept of broadleaf planting undertaken by that organisation. In addition, the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Byrne, recently launched a new publication, "Growing Broadleaves", on the growing and management of broadleaf plantations, published by COFORD which is funded by my Department. This is, in fact, the first book published in Ireland that provides landowners, foresters, and the general public with comprehensive silvicultural guidelines for the main broadleaf species.
The European Commission report referred to by the Deputy under the reference 2080/92 is, in fact, a mid-term review of the application of the accompanying measure for forestry (Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2080/92) in the member states.
The report presents a factual description of the application of the measure and is not in any way critical of Ireland or any other member state.
The afforestation programme is funded under the accompanying measures for CAP, namely, Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2080/92 of June 1992 which instituted a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture. This aid is part-financed, 75 per cent, by the guarantee section of the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund, EAGGF, to promote afforestation as an alternative use of agricultural land and the development of forestry activities on farms in order to accompany the changes to be introduced under the market organisation rules; contribute towards an eventual improvement in forestry resources; contribute towards forms of countryside management more compatible with environmental balance; combat the greenhouse effect and absorb carbon-dioxide.
The aid scheme comprises aid for afforestation costs, a premium to cover maintenance of afforested areas, a premium to cover losses of income resulting from afforestation of agriculture land. Under the afforestation programme, a fundamental condition of grant-aid is that forestry development is compatible with the protection of the environment and there are a wide range of controls in place to ensure this takes place. All projects must be submitted for grant approval before work begins so that environmental factors can be taken into account. Where environmental considerations are identified other State agencies and local authorities are consulted in relation to national heritage areas, areas of landscape or amenity interests, areas of fisheries interest and areas of archaeological interest. Published guidelines on the landscape, fisheries and archaeology must be implemented by grant-aided forestry and grant-aid is not available for planting within at least 60 metres of a building unless the owner agrees, in which cases the minimum distance is 30 metres, or within 20 metres of a public road for conifers or ten metres for broadleaves. Grants are not available for areas which are protected or qualify for protection under the EU birds directive or habitats directive. Applications for grant assistance have been refused and proposed projects adjusted on environmental grounds.
Sitka spruce grows particularly well in Ireland, in relation to both its suitability for soils and sites and its early economic return, and will therefore continue to be the basis of the afforestation programme. In terms of the environment, conifers remove more carbon from the atmosphere than broadleaves and are, therefore, more efficient in combating the greenhouse effect. However I recognise the value of species diversification in relation to providing a variety of end-use options, protecting forest health, enhancing landscape, providing recreation and leisure opportunities and improving wildlife and habitat diversity. As referred to above, I have therefore introduced a requirement that all conifer sites must have at least 20 per cent of conifer species other than Sitka spruce, lodgepole pine and a requirement to plant a 10 per cent broadleaf content on diverse conifer plantations, site permitting. The national target, as set out in the strategic plan for the development of the forestry sector, is to reduce Sitka spruce planting to 60 per cent of total afforestation.
Funding for post-1999 afforestation is being dealt with in the new rural development regulation of Agenda 2000. Discussions in relation to this have commenced and, in this context, the forestry strategy, in common with all national development strategies will be reviewed.
Trevor Sargent
Question:
139
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
if any of the birch species are grant aided under any of the forestry planting programmes; if he will confirm that this native broadleaf species is not included in the hardwood mixes that are being planted; his views on whether this represents a neglect of a potentially valuable resource in silvicultural terms; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[15874/98]
Trevor Sargent
Question:
141
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine
and Natural Resources whether his attention has been drawn to the extensive use of native Finnish birch in house building in Finland; his views on whether the species has similar commercial potential in this country in view of its quality as a timber and its status as a tree species native to this island; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[15876/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 139 and 141 together.
I am aware of the extensive use of native birch in Finland. There are two species of birch indigenous to Ireland and common to northern Europe. Unfortunately, the timber of both species has very limited commercial value in Ireland because of the small size and poor form associated with these species. In Scandinavia, birch of the same species attain substantially greater size and much better form and, as a result, the wood has furniture and industrial potential. Trials with seed of Scandinavian origin have been laid down on several occasions in Ireland but the results have been unsatisfactory due to provenance differences within species.
I can confirm that birch species are grant aided under the forestry planting programmes when used as a constituent of a mixed species plantation. Being a pioneer species, it has a valuable silvicultural role as a nurse species in the establishment of both conifer and broadleaf plantation. It is also used and grant aided in forest establishment for landscape and amenity purposes. However, because of its small size and poor form relative to other species, it has very limited potential as a timber resource in Ireland.
Trevor Sargent
Question:
140
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
whether his attention has been drawn to the breeding programme for the improvement of silver birch undertaken in Finland with full Government support over the past 30 years and the recent translation of work from that project to Scotland; the plans, if any, he has to initiate and resource a similar development programme for birch; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[15875/98]
I am aware of the breeding programmes abroad to which the Deputy refers. A two year pilot study on Irish birch began this year. The study, which is being carried out by the UCD Botany Department in partnership with Teagasc, is being funded by my Department through COFORD, the National Council for Forest Research and Development. The principal aim of the study is to identify Irish birch of superior form and to establish a gene bank, with a view to improving the quality of the species.
Trevor Sargent
Question:
143
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources
if it is the policy of his Department not to promote coniferous afforestation by any means in areas covered by national heritage areas, special areas of conservation and special protection area designations or in areas where landowners have committed to the REP scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[15878/98]
It is the policy of my Department not to grant aid afforestation, either coniferous or broadleaf, for areas which are protected under the EU birds or habitats direcitves. These areas which are listed by Dúchas, the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, are designated as either special protection areas, SPAs, as described by the birds directive or special areas of conservation, SACs, in accordance with the provisions of the habitats directive.
Other areas such as national heritage areas, NHAs, archaeological sites or monuments are considered on their merits but are refused grant aid where the development would be incompatible with their protection.
The implementing rules for the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, operated by the Department of Agriculture and Food allows a participant to afforest part of their land and continue to farm the remainder of the land in REPS.
