Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Feb 2001

Vol. 530 No. 2

Ceisteanna–Questions. Priority Questions. - Afforestation Programme.

Paul Connaughton

Question:

5 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the reason landowners who committed lands to forestry before the commencement of the higher grant aid payment scheme are not being retrospectively compensated; if the EU has indicated whether it will fund or part fund this part of the scheme; and if the Government has made any decision to fund the scheme in the event that the EU will not do so; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3488/01]

Following discussions with the European Commission, I was pleased to announce in March last significant increases, averaging 30%, in the rates of annual forest premium for those planting from 1 October 1999. In the case of farmers planting broadleaves (oak and beech) in severely handicapped areas, for example, the annual premium increased from £265 to £373 per hectare. For farmers planting 20% diverse conifers, the premium increased from £210 to £308 per hectare. The new scheme included a three-yearly view, which the previous scheme lacked.

The Commission was unwilling at that time to co-fund similar increases for those who planted in earlier years, on the basis that they had signed a contract.

My Department made a further detailed submission to the Commission in April 2000 in support of such increases. I vigorously pursued this case at a number of meetings with the Commission both here and in Europe in the latter half of last year. Regrettably, the Commission remained steadfast in its refusal to co-fund the increases.

Application of the 30% increase to pre-1999 planting would give a much needed boost in terms of confidence for the sector, in meeting the targets in our afforestation programme and in delivering on the forestry elements of the National Climate Change Strategy. For that reason I am now considering possible funding from the Exchequer, at an estimated annual cost at present of £3.4 million, for those who planted prior to 1 October 1999. In view of the State aids aspect, any decision to have the cost borne by the Exchequer would also require Commission agreement.

I thank the Minister for trying. The reason I put down the question was that another effort was being made to go back to the European Union. That has obviously failed. Is the Minister putting it on the record today that the Exchequer is willing to pick up the tab? In other words, is the Government making £3.4 million available to about 7,000 farmers who planted prior to the introduction of the higher level of funding, subject to the agreement of the European Commission?

There are two aspects to this. I am negotiating with the Department of Finance and the Deputy will know from experience how simple that is. However, I hope to have a decision from that Department within the next few days. I had to apply the same vigour to the Department of Finance as I applied in Europe. A decision has not been made but I do not intend to give up easily. A decision by the Department of Finance is imminent and I must then seek the agreement of the European Commission. Because of all the trips I made to Europe and the meetings I had there, I am probably expected back, asking for permission to allow the Government to take up the extra £3.4 million.

If the Government does not take this up it will have a huge knock-on negative effect on the number of farmers going into forestry. We all thought there would be a big number of people who would take up the higher payments but it has not worked out that way. Many farmers are of the opinion that if there were to be a change in the future they would be caught a second time. As far as the future of forestry is concerned the £3.4 million would be well spent by the Exchequer. I am disappointed the Minister is not in a position to say this will be done. It is obvious that a Government decision has not yet been made on this.

It would be difficult to argue with what the Deputy said. There is some good news in that I secured three yearly reviews in the new scheme. We can go back within three years and seek an increase.

I accept that.

That was a weakness in the original scheme. I hope it will have an effect.

It is what we did not get that worries me.

It increased planting by about 3,000 hectares. However, it is not nearly enough. With that in mind—

Maybe the senior Minister might like to say something about it.

He has been most helpful both at Commission and Government level.

It did not happen yet.

There is something greater than having an increase in planting which is that we must all stress the importance of forestry in fulfilling our commitment to the Kyoto protocol. The conifer takes more carbon from the atmosphere than any other plant. We must strive to get that message across and I am fighting tooth and nail to ensure we get the extra money.

Top
Share