We will move on to the update on Ireland's forestry strategy. I call Mr. Fergus Moore.
Update on Ireland's Forestry Strategy: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Mr. Fergus Moore
I thank the committee for the invitation to the meeting. I very much welcome the opportunity to provide an update on Ireland’s forest strategy and forestry programme. I am joined by senior inspector for forestry development and head of the forestry inspectorate, Mr. Seamus Dunne.
We will discuss the Government’s approach to expanding, protecting and developing our forests and woodlands for the benefit of the environment, people and the economy, especially the rural economy. The first requirement of any new strategy is a vision for what we are trying to achieve. What do people want from our forests, what value do they attach to them and what benefits do they wish to get from them? After extensive consultation across a broad section of society, which included a citizens' deliberative dialogue, a youth forum, engagement with rural communities and bilateral meetings with key stakeholders, a vision statement was published last year. It called for “the right trees in the right places for the right reasons with the right management”. This new vision statement underpins the development of a new forest strategy to 2050, which sets out clear objectives for the role of trees and forests in Ireland between now and the middle of the century.
This draft strategy focuses on five key goals that recognise the importance of forests for climate, nature, wood, people and the rural economy. The strategy, in turn, will be realised in the medium term by means of a range of actions. A significant proportion of these actions will be delivered under the proposed new forestry programme for 2023 to 2027. To inform both the forest strategy and the programme we have consulted widely. As part of the strategic environmental assessment and the appropriate assessment process a six-week public consultation has been carried out on the draft implementation plan, known as the forestry programme, and various non-forestry programme actions.
In parallel, we invited submissions on the forest strategy. We received more than 130 submissions on the strategy and more than 150 submissions on the forest strategy implementation plan, which includes the forestry programme.
We are currently examining these inputs and expect to be in position to publish the strategy as soon as forestry programme receives State aid approval. The Department, after an extensive pre-notification process, submitted the formal State aid notification for the forestry programme on 20 April 2023. The Department is engaged proactively with the Commission in order to secure State aid approval as soon as possible. The Commission is currently reviewing this notification in detail to decide whether the proposed forestry programme is compatible with EU State aid rules. I can advise that to this effect, the Department received further written correspondence relating to this notification on the 6 and 21 June 2023. Additionally, bi-lateral discussions were held on the forestry programme in person between the Commission and the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and Minister of State, Senator Pippa Hackett, on 20 June 2023. This included intensive engagements with Vice President Timmermans and Commissioner Sinkevičius. The Department has recently responded in detail to the correspondence received on 6 June and is currently preparing an additional comprehensive reply to the further correspondence received on 21 June, which will issue shortly. The Department recognises the importance of a well-funded forestry programme and has highlighted the importance to the European Commission, which is currently assessing Ireland's application for State aid. We look forward to engaging with the joint committee this evening and addressing any questions members may have.
I welcome the officials from the Department. We have gone around the houses. Clearly, the forestry sector is in crisis and no one seems to be listening. We have difficulty engaging with the Ministers from the Department. No one is really willing to get up, come down, engage and tell us what is the story. The real issue is about transparency. What is going on in the European Union? What are the discussions with the Minister, Deputy Ryan, the Minister of State, Senator Pippa Hackett, and Vice President Timmermans on these matters? Somehow, the word that is out about this means I am not too sure if the Green Party is that keen at all to engage on this forestry strategy, because it is coming up with many excuses. There seems to be a lack of transparency.
I will take the witnesses through a few timelines to keep the focus. I am conscious that people are listening to this. We tend to talk in a bubble here but the public listens, so we need to set out the landscape for people. In November 2022, the Government announced a €1.3 billion forestry programme, which was for 2023 to 2027. This new programme was expected to replace the previous programme, which expired at the end of 2022. The Department submitted a request for State approval only in April 2023. People can see the timeline. It is now July 2023 and the new programme is still awaiting formal State aid approval by the European Commission. We know that in the last week or two, Vice President Timmermans and the Minister, Deputy Ryan, presumably using his environmental credentials and brief, and the Minister of State with responsibility for forestry, Senator Pippa Hackett, have been engaging, but we do not know what they are talking about and they do not seem to want to share what they are talking about and what the hiccups are. We do not fully understand the problems and concerns. What is this correspondence? Who will make it available?
Foresters, farmers and people involved in this sector do not clearly know what is going on. As the witnesses know and can confirm to the committee here, the Department is not in a position to launch new forestry schemes until a satisfactory strategic environmental assessment is in place. I note the Department is having public engagement and consultation. It is all about public engagement and consultation when this is a strategy that should have been up and running on 1 January this year. The Department cannot issue licences or grants for afforestation projects, roads or forestry support schemes. Already, six or seven months in, we have this problem. We need to ask what is going on.
There are other issues with the incomplete strategic environmental assessment, SEA. The European Commission has expressed serious concerns about the SEA. It has also expressed concerns about the appropriate assessment, AA, process. The issue of transparency is important. I am led to believe the EU is critical of the Sitka spruce model. That comes as a surprise. I am not critical of it but the EU has expressed serious concerns about the Sitka spruce model. I also believe the European Commission has expressed issues about the Coillte-Gresham House deal. I do not want to go into the Gresham House deal today but that is also part of the mix and we have a problem there. What is the issue? We know the importance of forestry from social, economic and environmental perspectives. There are many facets to the forestry sector. The problem is that we, charged with the area of agriculture, food and the marine, have not got satisfactory answers. I am sorry to say the witnesses came here with a cut and paste job today. We have read this. I have a Commencement matter on this in the Seanad yesterday. Again, we were told there are ongoing discussions. It is late in the night so I will keep it short. I thank the witnesses for their time.
What are the concerns of the European Commission on this? This is meant to be a Government strategy but we are not convinced that some members of Government are really committed to the forestry strategy. What is the engagement? What is being said to Vice President Timmermans about the strategy? What is the witnesses' knowledge of it? Do they have any knowledge of it? Do they know what is going on? Are they in the dark too, as we are in the dark? Those are the challenges. In summary, we need more information about what is going on. Can the witnesses give us any hope or have they any idea of when this will be approved? Can they shed some light on this? I will come back to them if I have a supplementary question about their responses.
Mr. Fergus Moore
I will probably pass the Senator over to my colleague, Mr. Seamus Dunne, but I confirm that the SEA process is well advanced. We cannot complete it until the forestry programme State aid rules have been agreed. We are still waiting for the final detail. The SEA process is very well advanced. We are waiting for clarification from the Commission that what we have proposed is acceptable to it. Mr. Dunne might give more detail on some of the issues at a high level which have been raised by the committee.
And the clarifications for which the EU was looking. Will the witnesses shed some light on the questions it is asking and what clarifications it is seeking?
Before Mr. Dunne comes in, this CAP programme was delayed for two years. We were in limbo for two years. We were given assurances when this strategy went to Brussels that it would be brought back by return of post. That was 1 January. We are now in the first week in July. We have seen that more questions are being asked by the Commission. It was bad enough to have to wait until 1 January to send in the strategy, but why were all these issues not dealt with in the Commission in the two previous years while we were waiting for the new CAP to start? Now, as the Senator said, a huge amount of money has been put into a forestry programme and there definitely will be no expenditure on it in 2023. There are serious questions to be asked about how we have left ourselves in this position. We have now had two and a half years with no afforestation taking place.
Mr. Seamus Dunne
To address some of the points, the Senator is right that our aim was to have the forestry programme up and running as early as possible this year. We had extensive consultation to develop a forestry strategy programme and vision, which was completed in 2022. We had an SEA and AA process which is nearly completed. We are waiting confirmation on what additional changes are required and agreed. Nothing from any previous State aid approval process would have led us to believe that this process would turn out to be as lengthy and protracted as it currently is. There is no doubt about the Government commitment to forestry. We had Government approval for €1.3 billion last November. We had a forestry programme completed last October. When it was first recognised that there was a risk that the programme would not be up and running early in the new year, we developed a de minimis scheme to allow any farmer or landowner who had approval to plant. We have 1,700 ha of land opted into that.
The Commission has raised concerns, which I will talk a little about. We have been involved, as Mr. Moore said, in ongoing engagement with the Commission to address concerns in a way that is fully compliant with environmental law, our own national law and the State aid guidelines on afforestation. Our aim and the aim of the Commission is to maximise planting and comply with environmental law, EU law, national law and State aid guidelines.
To deal directly with the issues we are discussing with the Commission, there are several issues, almost all environment related. They include the percentage of broadleaf trees planted nationally and regionally, and farmland birds, in particular open habitat birds, such as merlin and hen harrier, and the breeding waders, such as curlew, redshank, lapwing, dunlin, snipe and golden plover.
In addition, it has issues around peatlands on two fronts, one in terms of Annex I habitat peatland sites and, on the other side, the carbon balance in regard to planting peatlands. There are issues that we are addressing around high nature value farmland, given it is addressed in the state aid guidelines that there should be no inappropriate afforestation of high nature value farmland. There are issues that we are addressing on the freshwater pearl mussel, the screening for environmental impact assessment, EIA, public participation in decision-making, planting wetlands and climate adaptation.
These are the issues that have been under intense discussion with the Commission this year and we are resolving them with the Commission. In the last number of days, we have responded to its most recent submission of 1 June, and we submitted a letter back to the Commission in the last few days addressing all of its outstanding concerns, in our view.
Can Mr. Dunne share with us how that was addressed? What has the Department suggested to the Commission that would address some of those concerns?
Annex I is for a designated area and people could not plant in that area last year or the year before. What is the question about that? That was there before. The EIA was there last year and the year before. All of these things that Mr. Dunne has rhymed off were there before. How could it be questioned again when people could not plant on it before this, or are they to go planting everywhere? People could not plant in the hen harrier areas and Ciaran O'Keeffe was doing stuff for the national parks. We are aware of all of those things. I am sorry for interrupting Senator Boyhan but there is a ream of stuff coming out here. A child would know this. It was the same story last year and the year before so it will be no different this year.
Can Mr. Dunne take us through how the Department is responding to what he considers to be the challenges? What is he saying? What was the Department's response?
Mr. Seamus Dunne
We are looking at it in terms of complying with EU law on state aid guidelines. We are engaged in the process on all of these issues. I cannot say what our position is exactly on each of these and what is in-----
Mr. Dunne cannot say or he does not know.
Mr. Seamus Dunne
I do know but I cannot tell the Senator what exactly our negotiating position is with the EU.
Can he share that with us?
Mr. Seamus Dunne
I can share with the committee what the issues are.
I cannot believe what we are hearing here. We had two years to get ready to take this policy to Brussels and here we are, six months into it, dealing with issues that should have been dealt with two years ago. The forestry sector is on its knees. Contractors are looking in at this session to see if there is light at the end of the tunnel. Whatever hope they had is disappearing very fast.
We are back where we started.
We are worse. To say we are appalled at what we are hearing is an understatement. This is unbelievable. We are going backwards at a rate of knots. As Deputy Fitzmaurice said, all of these issues should have been dealt with before this project went anywhere near Brussels.
Annex I came in back in 1999. I know a bit about it because it concerned bogs. Let no one say that for the last 23 years we did not know about it.
I want to finish up because I am conscious of time. Again, we need to see the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, in here. I am hearing more from the witnesses than I am hearing from the Minister of State. I asked Mr. Dunne if he knows and he does know. Now, I am asking him if he would share some of the amelioration or the measures that he is suggesting to counteract the concerns of the Commission.
Mr. Seamus Dunne
We are engaging on all of these topics-----
I know that and Mr. Dunne has told us that three times. Could he tell me how the Department proposes to address those issues?
Mr. Seamus Dunne
We are proposing to address these issues. We are proposing solutions around the percentage of broadleaves and open habitat birds.
Tell us what solutions are being proposed.
Mr. Seamus Dunne
We are engaging in all of these areas. In terms of peatlands, the Commission has come to us regarding the peat depth and the carbon balance, and we are looking at that. In the negotiations, we are addressing all of the issues and we have been doing so this year. We are engaging on all of these issues with the Commission.
I understand that Mr. Dunne said the Department is engaging and we do not doubt that. He should tell us the solutions the Department is rolling out or is proposing to address the concerns. That is what we want to hear. We have been around the houses. Mr. Dunne is working on this case. What is he suggesting as solutions? We are charged with responsibility in this area, as the Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We need to get answers but we cannot get answers. Let us remember there are people - members of the media, farmers and foresters - listening to this and they are none the wiser from Mr. Dunne’s sharing with us or lack of sharing with us. He should please tell us the solutions that he is suggesting.
Mr. Fergus Moore
In fairness, the Commission has raised a number of issues and concerns, and certainly over the last number of months, we have done a lot of very good work in the sector. In many cases, we have tried to demonstrate the controls, checks and balances that we have, and the forestry sector itself is very responsible in doing a lot of things. For example, in regard to peat depth, peat was raised as an issue. Obviously, the Commission would be looking at the legacy impact of planting forests on peatlands and it would have serious concerns that we would do something similar again in the future.
Let us cut to the chase. Is it 50 cm and 30 cm that are the different options in the debate at the moment? Is that right?
Mr. Fergus Moore
The debate at the moment is that, basically, the Commission does not want to see forestry planting on peat as it would have a negative impact on carbon. We have looked at the various-----
Am I correct in saying that the Commission is looking for no more than a depth of 30 cm and the Department is talking about 50 cm? Is that right?
Mr. Fergus Moore
The Deputy is right that 30 cm has been raised.
This is what Senator Boyhan is asking. What are the main issues?
I want to know what are the solutions.
Mr. Fergus Moore
What we have done as regards-----
What is the solution to that?
Mr. Fergus Moore
With regard to our solution, as the members know, it is not black and white with regard to peat.
Mr. Moore is going to make it black and white for us now. Can he set out the solutions?
Mr. Fergus Moore
Some 20% of our land is peatland and if we look at the existing forest, a significant amount of our forest is on peatlands. It is not a case of all peat-----
Let us look at the 50 cm and the 30 cm. What is the solution to this debate? What has the Department written back to the Commission? Is it that we are sticking with 50 cm or going back to 30 cm? What has the Department said? That is all we are looking for - what the Department said back to the Commission.
Mr. Fergus Moore
We are basically looking at various peat depths that do not cause a negative impact on carbon balance, and 30 cm has been suggested. From the research we would have seen, if trees are planted on 30 cm of peat and the trees are very productive, there is actually a neutral to net benefit in regard to carbon. Therefore, all land types that would have any element of peat would be conducive to having a net positive effect on forestry. We are looking at various peat depths, we are looking at the type of soils that we can plant and we do not want to rule out any large areas. The key thing in our discussions with the Commission is that we are not planting on blanket bogs, raised bogs or on those very important habitats.
There is a gradation between mineral soils and peat soils, where we get that “in-between” aspect. We are looking at what level of “in-between” we can plant without having a negative impact on carbon. That is part of the discussions we are having at the moment with the Commission, as an example.
Does the Department have to do backup on that?
Mr. Fergus Moore
In what way?
Does the Department have to do hydrology, ecology and all of that?
Mr. Fergus Moore
We have looked at some of the research and, basically, when trees are planted on 30 cm of peat or less, there is a positive carbon balance. Basically, those trees-----
If they are planted on 50 cm, which the Department was looking for, is that okay as well?
Mr. Fergus Moore
If they are planted on 50 cm, the results would indicate it has a net negative impact on carbon. Planting large peat depths with drainage is not going to be on in a new-----
Why was the Department’s position 50 cm if it is doing that and if 30 cm was working?
Mr. Fergus Moore
There has been a lot of research in the last two years which has shown we have underestimated the level of carbon emissions on forest and peatlands. That is having an impact and it means we are having to revise this.
Hold on. I am aware of what has happened in the last two years because I watch it.
The negotiations in the past six months are what we are on about. Where do the witnesses stand on peat depth? If we start going down to 30 cm and watching every place where there is a hen harrier and watching all the things witnesses have mentioned, people will have to head for the Cathaoirleach’s country in the Golden Vale to look for land because, bejaysus, we will soon have no land. It will not be up to standard. That is a huge problem.
I expected a lot more today. We have talked and talked about the strategy. The witnesses came in to give us an update on the strategy but I do not think they are prepared. Either they are not prepared or they are not prepared to answer the questions. I will suggest to the committee that we have the witnesses back. I think they need to go away, do their homework and get back here as soon as possible with facts. We are here to elicit information, not to be told the Department is working hard and negotiating. We need to move beyond that. We do not doubt the witnesses are working hard and are committed and that there is a forestry strategy. There are the EIA, AA and SEA processes. There are many outstanding issues and I do not see us making any progress in the coming months. That is shocking. I am surprised the witnesses have not been able, willing or prepared to share where we are. They have been unable or unprepared to enlighten us and we are no wiser. That is disappointing. What they are saying is what we have heard already. We need another session and to get the Ministers back in here to answer some questions.
The Minister needs to come in, as Senator Boyhan said. We also deserve a list. We are after hearing that 30 cm is all right, and 50 cm, but our stand was 50 cm. We need to know what is going on. Mr. Dunne stated there was 1,700 ha for the de minimis scheme. What is done? What is planted?
Mr. Seamus Dunne
There is about 1,300 ha that have commenced-----
They have been planted this year.
Mr. Seamus Dunne
-----or are completed works, yes.
It will end up the worst year ever for forestry planting. With due respect to the witnesses, we require and I propose that the Minister come in with the witnesses and everything is detailed and we get all the correspondence over and back to Brussels regarding the problems. We are working in a black hole. I propose we suspend this meeting and if everyone is ready next week to rock up or the week after the holidays, no problem, we will rock up to it but, Jesus, we want answers. We do not want the same ding-dong.
I second that. It is 9.20 p.m. and we have been over this time and again. We will spend another hour here and finish up with no answers.
We are going to get very cross.
Yes. It is no reflection on the witnesses but I agree with Deputy Fitzmaurice we need the Ministers in here with answers. It is Groundhog Day. Christ, every time we come in here with forestry it is the same thing. We go out more frustrated than we came in because we finish up with no answers to anything. I second the proposal to suspend the meeting.
I got five calls today from stakeholders in the forestry industry telling me to make sure I find out what date the forestry strategy will be accepted in Brussels. There are people whose livelihoods depend on this and some of them employ significant numbers of people. Given what the witnesses have said tonight, I will not even put the question because I know the answer will be even more depressing for people involved in the sector.
We have proposed the discussion be suspended but I want to put it on the record clearly that, as the Oireachtas committee with responsibility for the sector, we are very unhappy with where this is at and with the level of preparation to answer our questions. This is a strategy we were told would be ready a couple of weeks after 1 January. We have gone into the second half of the year with no end in sight.
We spent three hours this evening discussing nitrates, our battle on water quality and all about climate change. The forestry sector has a huge part to play in that and we are leaving it without a programme in place. It is not acceptable. The industry is vital to rural Ireland and has a huge part to play in the climate challenges we face. These issues should have been sorted before the programme ever went near Brussels. It should have been over and back in two to three weeks. It is incomprehensible that we have ourselves in this situation.
In the morning, I know the phone will be loud again with forestry people. There are people making decisions about their business and leaving the sector. People here sat with me in Tullamore and heard the contractor at the back of the room. He is one of many. They are making decisions about whether to stay in the sector or not. They want to stay in it and have invested hugely in it. They knew this was coming up and will be watching on television. They will be extremely worried going to their beds tonight.
I am taking Deputy Fitzmaurice’s proposal, seconded by Deputy Browne, and the secretariat will get the correspondence going tomorrow.
When we reconfigure on this matter, I would like an update on where we are going with the broadleaf issue. We are planting trees that could be harvested in 30 years' time. We are looking at a scenario where 70-75% of our housing now is built with timber. Has that been factored in? Do we have enough timber for the industry?
We were in the plant at the Murray Timber Group and saw the end product that came out of there and the benefit it brought to the economy. In as rural a place as you can get, 180 people were employed, with 250 other gaining secondary employment from it. Yet here we are and we are not going to plant timber. Senator Paul Daly or someone that day made the point that Murray’s will be making plans shortly to invest in their business going forward. What signal are they getting?
I agree with the proposal. I will flag that I want explained the next day how we ended up here. All I heard was, as the Chairman said, you would think it was coming back by return post. This thing was just going over to Europe for reasons related to state aid rules. Now it appears it is going over for approval of what type of soil and where. It is a complete strategy the people over there looking at this are coming back on, questioning and trying to determine. State aid rules are state aid rules. It is about how much money we can give a man to sow trees; it is not about telling him where he can or cannot sow. I want to know how we ended up here and how the whole strategy is up for review, not just the state aid rule end of it. We were told at all junctures that, like the Chairman said, it would be back by return post and was only going over to be rubber-stamped for state aid rules.
My understanding is Poland was being slowed down by EU officials and basically told them to go where the sun does not shine and drove on. Will the witnesses check out what Poland did to drive on while we are still looking?
When the invitation goes out to the Ministers and Department, it needs to be made clear that, when this meeting is reconvened, every answer that has been sought for months must be on the table in front of us so we are not having a big row again with officials or Ministers. It is like extracting teeth at times.
I ask the officials to let the Minister know in the morning very quickly that the committee is completely unhappy with the state of affairs, the level of information we are getting and the state of the forestry sector. This committee has devoted a serious amount of time to this sector. This is not a good evening for the sector.
The next meeting of the committee will resume examination of the development of the sheep sector and weight restrictions on lamb.
The joint committee adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 July 2023.