Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate

Threat of Bark Beetles to Plantations: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

We have not received any apologies. Deputy Wynne has indicated she will attend later. Before we begin, I remind members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones.

The witnesses should note that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has full defence against any defamation action about anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue by the Chair. 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 about 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 publication by the 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 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 where their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in the public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in the member having his or her online access removed.

The purpose of today's meeting is the examination of the threat of bark beetles to plantations. The committee will hear from representatives from the Irish Farmers Association and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The first session will hear from representatives from the IFA. We are joined by its president, Mr. Francie Gorman; Mr. Jason Fleming, the farm forestry chair; Mr. Damian McDonald, director general; and Ms Geraldine O’Sullivan, senior policy executive. They are all very welcome.

Their opening statement has been circulated to committee members. I will allow five minutes to read the opening statement and then we will proceed to a question-and-answer session. As it is Mr. Gorman’s first time before the committee as president of the IFA, I wish him the very best of luck in his term as president. I am sure we will cross paths fairly regularly in the coming months. On my own behalf, and that of the committee, I wish him the very best of luck.

Mr. Francie Gorman

I thank the committee for inviting the IFA here today. I am joined by the chair of IFA’s farm forestry committee, Jason Fleming; our director general, Damian McDonald; and Geraldine O’Sullivan, our senior policy executive for environment and forestry issues. We are here today to discuss the threat posed by the spruce bark beetle to the health of Ireland’s spruce forests. This has been a huge issue. Millions of hectares of spruce forests have been destroyed across Europe by the spruce bark beetle. What was grown over generations was destroyed in just a few short years by the spruce bark beetle.

Spruce bark beetles are small insects that live and reproduce beneath the bark of spruce trees, both Sitka and Norway spruce. Generally, the beetles reside in trees with weakened defence mechanisms, but they can also attack healthy trees if beetle populations grow large enough. The majority of young bark beetles tend to die off when temperatures drop, but the trend of longer warmer summers is keeping the beetles alive and allowing them to reproduce at a faster rate, while droughts are weakening the trees’ defences. The past two decades have seen an increase in more detrimental infestations, which many scientists attribute to climate change.

There are two spruce bark beetles, the great spruce bark beetle and the eight-toothed spruce bark beetle, which are of particular concern to Irish farmers. Both are non-native to Ireland and pose a serious risk to the health of Ireland’s spruce forests. The great spruce bark beetle is found in throughout England, Wales and southern Scotland. It is slowly spreading northwards and is now within miles of the border of western Scotland’s pest-free area. The demarcation of a pest-free area enables the trade of conifer roundwood with bark to Ireland. In 2023, an eight-toothed spruce bark beetle was confirmed in Scotland for the first time, although Scottish Forestry believes it is a one-off finding that simply hitchhiked on the back of goods being shipped within the UK.

There are two spruce bark beetles, the great spruce bark beetle and the eight-toothed spruce bark beetle, which are of particular concern to Irish farmers. Both are non-native to Ireland and pose a serious risk to the health of Ireland’s spruce forests. The great spruce bark beetle is found in throughout England, Wales and southern Scotland and is slowly spreading northwards, and is now within miles of the border of western Scotland’s pest free area. The demarcation of a pest free area enables the trade of conifer roundwood with bark to Ireland. In 2023, an eight-toothed spruce bark beetle was confirmed in Scotland for the first time, although Scottish Forestry believe it is a one-off finding that simply hitchhiked on the back of goods being shipped within the UK.

According to Ireland’s national forest inventory 2022, spruce forests account for approximately 65% of the private grant-aided forest estate, which is predominantly owned and managed by farmers. This is the equivalent to nearly 200,000 ha of forest land and shows the potential risk to the Ireland’s forest industry should the spruce bark beetle take hold. A spruce bark beetle outbreak would cause extensive economic loss to the forest industry, but it would be farmers that would bear the brunt of the economic consequences. These include a reduction in the commercial value of the infested trees, increased management costs as well as replanting costs. As per the Department rules, it is a condition of grant aid that in the event of significant tree deaths the losses are required to be replaced within the following two growing seasons or such other period as agreed, in writing, by the Department. Failure to replace losses may result in the recoupment of grants and premiums paid.

Both of the spruce bark beetles mentioned are a protected zone quarantine pest. This means that Ireland has a protected zone status against these pests recognised under the EU plant health law which imposes stricter import and protective measures, specifically that coniferous wood with bark cannot be imported into Ireland from EU countries where these beetles are known to occur unless it is accompanied by an official statement to say the wood originates from pest-free area, is free of bark or has been kiln dried. Consequently, the importation of roundwood with bark from Great Britain to Ireland is permitted but only if it originates from the officially recognised pest-free area, PFA, and is accompanied by an official statement to attest to its origin.

The pest-free area is routinely surveyed by the Forestry Commission for the presence or absence of the regulated harmful bark beetles in order to maintain this PFA status. Despite the surveys and monitoring, the reality is that the eight-tooth spruce bark beetle is steadily extending its range and has been found in traps within miles of the border of the pest-free area. Importing untreated wood with bark is the most likely entry pathway for the spruce bark beetle into Ireland. According the CSO in 2021, nearly 300,000 m3 of coniferous roundwood was imported into Ireland, predominantly from Scotland.

Farmers, as a result of the ongoing negative experience with ash dieback, are on high alert. They do not trust that adequate biosecurity measures are in place to prevent the introduction of the spruce bark beetle to Ireland, or that the current inspection regime is sufficient. They consider the importation of timber from the pest-free areas to be a major threat to the health of their spruce forests. The recent independent review of support for farmers affected by ash dieback supports these concerns and raises a number of points that are relevant to this discussion. It states that the potential for future damage to Irish forest from pests may be large; that international regulations aimed at mitigating the risks of introducing diseases are considered to be highly inadequate; that the ash dieback experience of farmers shines a spotlight on weaknesses in culture, leadership, communications and capability within the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine; and that there is a need for greater confidence that the State is doing everything possible to prevent the entry of other pests and diseases and has sufficient contingency plans in place. The best and most cost-effective way to fight any invasive pests is to prevent them from entering. That is why the IFA is calling for a temporary suspension of the importation of timber from Scotland until a full review of the biosecurity measures for the spruce bark beetle is undertaken. The IFA wants the Government to be more proactive and to take every precaution to ensure Ireland remains spruce bark beetle free.

A spruce bark beetle task force needs to be established immediately to give full consideration to the various risk factors; to review the current monitoring, surveillance and inspection programmes both here and in Scotland; and to introduce additional biosecurity measures or adapt legislation, if necessary. It is crucial that we learn from the lessons of other European countries, as well as the lessons of the ash dieback debacle. It is vital that a contingency plan that sets out the procedures and measures that may be required in the event of an outbreak is developed and communicated to the whole industry. We need to increase our preparedness and drastically improve communication with stakeholders. We must not put the forestry industry and our forests at risk for short-term gains. The experience from Europe is that overlooking just one spruce bark beetle can lead to widespread infestation, under the right environmental conditions.

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to express farmers’ ongoing disappointment with the pace at which the Department is dealing with ash dieback. The independent review report published in September 2023 stated that ash dieback should be treated like a national emergency and that speed and urgency were of the essence in order to realise the value of the trees; to restore trust and confidence; and to reduce the risks associated with large numbers of dead and dying trees in the landscape. Nearly four months later, we are still waiting on the implementation plan. That is not good enough. The rapid co-ordinated response farmers had hoped for has not happened. Farmers with ash dieback were relieved following the publication of the report. For the first time in 12 years its impact on them and their farm families as well as the financial losses were properly recognised. Now they are concerned that it was just another false dawn, and that the recommendations will come to nothing. We need the Government to publish an implementation plan as a matter of urgency and to introduce a new ash dieback scheme, a scheme that properly supports and compensates farmers with ash dieback as per the recommendations.

I thank the Chair for the invitation to outline our concerns on these issues.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Mythen has sent his apologies. He is unable to attend this evening. I have a few questions before I open the discussion up to members. Is the lack of certification of private sector timber an issue in our mills acquiring timber from Scotland? The financial implications of the bark beetle getting into our plantations are too horrific to contemplate. Mr. Gorman spoke about ash dieback. We as a committee have given a lot of attention to the plight of owners of plantations with ash dieback. We share the IFA's disappointment that financial compensation has not come to them. We have given it a serious airing in the committee on a significant number of occasions. I cannot understand why we are importing timber. If the bark is taken off, can the beetle be in the tree itself and resurface when it comes into the country? If the tree is clean of bark, does that mean you are certain the beetle is not in it?

Mr. Francie Gorman

I will defer to our national forestry chairman, Mr. Fleming.

Mr. Jason Fleming

Certification is 70:30, as the Chair knows. Some 70% is certified. Most of us farmers are not certified - that is the 30%. We have called for a national certification to be rolled out for the past three or four years. I think the Department is working on a trial certification but it has not been rolled out yet. The sooner it is, the better. As for homegrown timber, there is plenty in this country for the moment to supply mills while this task force is set up. The Chair mentioned de-barking on the Scottish side. If timber was de-barked on the Scottish side and dried, meaning you bring the log up to a certain temperature, that would kill every pest on that log. We have no problem with that, which is why we spoke about biosecurity measures. We have no problem with imports as such. If this spruce bark beetle gets into this country, it will be the final nail in the coffin. We were at the committee this time last year with the mills. Two mills were promoting farmers planting - Glennon Brothers and Murrays Timber Group. On the day, they said they would rather use homegrown timber. We are asking, as our president has often done, whether the short-term gain is worth the long-term risk. There should be a temporary suspension and we should set up a task force and go through the biosecurity measures. The Minister of State, Senator Hackett, was at the IFA AGM during which we had a discussion and I also met her afterwards in the lobby in Bluebell. It would be a simple thing to set up a task force, get all the relevant bodies around the table and agree the biosecurity measures. Then we can put our hands on our hearts and say we did our best to keep the spruce bark beetle out. At the moment, we cannot do that.

I was in Scotland on behalf of the IFA and saw at first hand the damage the spruce bark beetle is doing to Scottish plantations. There are pest-free zones and they mention affected and unaffected areas - there is a line drawn on the map where one side is affected and the other is not. That is not good enough from our point of view. Where timber is loaded over in Scotland, it is not taken to the port, it is loaded on a floating pier on the ocean. The checks I saw were bark beetle boxes that are put up and checked every morning. That is in no way sufficient for us, to just check a box in the morning. We asked the Department if it has been to Scotland to see what security checks are being done. I do not think it has.

An Cathaoirleach

To go back to certification, if our timber was 100% certified, would we be able to do without imports?

Mr. Jason Fleming

Ms O'Sullivan may wish to come in.

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

It is a driver of why timber is imported due to the requirement, as Mr. Fleming said, for mills and the chain of custody. They need 70% certified and 30% non-certified to get the stamp to say it is certified. This is increasingly becoming an issue as greater volumes of timber come from the private sector. At the moment, Coillte and the pension funds are certified and small areas of private forestry are certified but the vast majority are not. That is definitely a driver for the mills, particularly at pinch points during the year, which they manage by importing certified timber. It contributes to greater volumes of timber coming in. As Mr. Fleming said, work is ongoing following a report that a national certification scheme should be set up. A business plan is being developed, supported by the Department, but it will be a huge body of work to get all forest owners certified, particularly with the scale and size of private forest ownership. It is a significant increase in requirements and will be very costly in the management plans required to do it. We need to do it because our market demands it but it is contributing to more volumes coming into the country.

On the other question about removing bark, that significantly reduces the risk of bark beetle because it is under the bark. You would still need some biosecurity measures and management of that. Even in shipments, you can see bits of bark and the bark beetle could be there. It would reduce the risk significantly but you would still need surveillance, monitoring and management.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I welcome the new president of the IFA, to whom I say "well done" on a fabulous campaign. Looking from the outside, I never saw the IFA more invigorated and enthusiastic. Elections do things for politicians and the IFA. I thought it was an interesting and very engaging campaign. Having followed much of the campaign through various sources at a remove, it was clear that IFA farmers were out, energised and having strong debate. Mr. Gorman has set a precedent; may it continue. The IFA genuinely has a very important role. Like every organisation, it goes up and down in peaks and troughs but I detect a new energy around. I wish Mr. Gorman and the IFA personnel well.

Mr. Gorman clearly highlighted that farmers are on high alert over the spruce bark beetle. We are here today predominantly to discuss this particular challenge and issue. I also wish to touch on ash dieback, which I will do later. The IFA's statement, which it submitted in advance and we have all considered, contains a number of asks. Let us get down to the asks. We do not need to repeat or give anyone a lesson on the enormity of the challenges and economic impacts. I understand why the IFA is calling for a temporary suspension of the importation of timber from Scotland. That is a big ask. Many people will oppose it, such as the construction industry, particularly when they are looking at housing and other forms of construction, the Government is focused on the use of more timber in construction and there are challenges around lead-in times for felling trees in Ireland and around consistency of product and timber through the mills and the various processes. We need greater clarity on the implications of that such as the economic consequences. I understand the concern. Mr. Gorman has clearly led out with this as a call. I suggest that the IFA should look at that with other organisations such as IBEC and other bodies involved in the economics of these areas. I concur with the call to publish the implementation plan for ash dieback. It is now three months on and we have not heard anything. Things move very slowly, as the president well knows, in the forestry sector.

That is really important.

Again, I ask the IFA to lend its support to the concept of developing a national forestry agency. We have no national forestry agency, despite what people think. The Department is pursuing the whole forestry agenda, so some would argue it is favourably disposed to Coillte, but others would not The private sector says that is the case in its experience and how it is processing its plantation, road licensing, felling licences and all the various stages in the forestry sector. In this committee and these Houses, I have consistently called to explore the possibility of a national forestry authority that is independent of the Department of agriculture, and I hope the representatives could commit to supporting this or looking into it, at least. It should engage with all the stakeholders in forestry generally. I think that would be a very important step and one we should pursue.

We know about the potential risk of this beetle. I was in the UK before Christmas for a few days. I could see the devastation that was caused by bark beetle to the spruce in parts of the UK. It is scary. I have a question for the representatives regarding the numbers involved. They said in their opening statement that according to Ireland's national forestry inventory, spruce forests account for approximately 65% of private, grant-aid forestry, which is predominately owned and managed by farmers. That is the challenge. Many of those are members of the IFA. How will we support them? This beetle devastates forestry, and if that were to happen here, there are certain rules in terms of replanting. There are premiums that may be demanded back or reclaimed from the Department. There are serious challenges for it and farmers would ultimately be hurt. They would effectively be burnt and financially ruined as a consequence of this beetle.

Those are some points I wanted to raise. I commend the IFA on putting this issue on the agenda, for being here and for clearly setting out its stall. The witnesses might go back and look at the asks, one of which is on temporary suspension and the practicality of that. They might just touch on that issue, as well as on whether they will do more work on it.

Mr. Francie Gorman

I first thank the Senator for his kind comments. We look forward to working with the committee on this issue and all issues.

In terms of the temporary suspension, if we do not have a temporary suspension and if the bark beetle comes in here, the cost to the industry will far outweigh any cost that will accrue because of a temporary suspension. If we have a temporary suspension where we can put the review in place, and if we do it quickly enough, there will be enough of a timber supply in the country to keep the construction industry going. The idea, therefore, is that there will be a temporary suspension and the review will be put in place. Instead of it being a talking shop, it would report in a timely, rapid fashion. What we want from that is to see our biosecurity measures being completely reviewed. It is on the record of the Dáil that consignments of timber are coming into the country that are not checked. That is unacceptable. That poses a huge risk to our forestry sector. If we get that temporary suspension in place, if we get the review in place and if it reports quickly enough, it should have a minimal impact on the supply and availability of timber for the construction industry.

In terms of the Senator's question regarding supporting a forestry authority, it is already on the record that we support that call. Therefore, we are at one on that issue. We know that things move slowly in forestry, but they need to move a little faster. Certainly, we need for the review to be put in place immediately after a temporary suspension. That needs to happen in a rapid fashion. That is the ask, and I know it is a challenge, but it is a challenge that we cannot shirk. We need to get answers on this immediately. The Senator said it himself already. He has seen the devastating consequences of it in Britain and Europe.

There is also an issue with EU plant law. Under EU plant law, the issue cannot be addressed until the bark beetle is discovered here, at which point it will be too late. That is an issue that needs to be addressed as well. Legislation at a European level may need to be addressed to allow us to deal with the bark beetle in a more proactive fashion. That is an ask of ours as well.

In terms of replanting, we know what the replanting requirements are for farmers. I know personally from friends of mine who have ash forestry that it is quite severe. When they have no income coming in but they are supposed to replant, and this is through no fault of their own, it is a huge thing to ask people to put their hands in their pockets and replant their forests for that reason. That is why we are highlighting this issue at this stage, so we will not get to a stage where forestry is devastated and farmers will be required to replant. There will be huge economic consequences across the board, even for the commercial instalments as well, if this gets in and if spruce forests are devastated. Mr. Fleming or Ms O'Sullivan may want to come in on that issue.

Mr. Jason Fleming

On the issue of dieback, the Minister of State, Deputy Hackett, came out. We had a conference meeting in Tullamore and we invited the Minister of State. We sent her a three-person review group the night before she came out and the recommendations came out, which we welcomed. As was stated, we are waiting for the recommendations to be implemented. The sooner that is done, the better for all of us. It might be a starting point to get a bit of confidence back into the sector.

This was a damning report of the Department and the Minister regarding how farmers are treated in this country in terms of ash dieback. These farmers who have ash dieback are planting in good faith, just as farmers with Sitka spruce do. Disease comes into the country and those farmers are left seriously out of pocket. There are farmers who have 30 ha or 40 ha of ash dieback and their land is worthless. That is not fair.

The Senator mentioned the spruce bark beetle. A Monterey bark beetle has come in already to Cratloe, County Clare, and it is affecting pine plantations. I think there are 21 farmers being affected down there, as far as I know. The Department got samples and sent them all over Europe and America. They found out that this beetle came in from South America. They are saying it came in through Foynes port. We therefore already have an example of a beetle coming into Cratloe. The number of farmers with pine plantations is small. However, if the spruce bark beetle gets in, there are more than 200,000 ha of spruce. That figure relates only to the grant-aided, but there is a lot more than that in this country.

The big problem with forestry at the moment is that forestry should be treated as a crop, but it is not. From my own point of view as a farmer with forestry, forestry is part of my farm. It is under the LULUCF at the moment. The sooner farm forestry is treated as a crop, the better for everyone.

There is a scenario as well regarding imports, which I think our president mentioned a while back. The whitethorn hedgerows have been coming in through the ACRES environmental scheme and these hedgerows have to be planted by March. In all fairness to Mr. Gorman, a while back he said that if this were over the five-year period of the scheme, it would give the mills the chance to get the stock in place and we would not have to be importing the likes of whitethorn hedgerows. It is the exact same here with forestry.

As I have said already, it is scandalous to think that some of the consignments, which are already coming into this country, are not being checked. Four of us from the forestry committee went to Wicklow and it was very hard to see there what checks were being done. They put down a grab to collect nine or ten logs and dropped them from the boat onto the port, but we just could not see what checks were being done. The Department is a visible check is being done to the top of the load, the middle of the load and the bottom of the load. There is also an odd log check here and there. That is not good enough. It is just not good enough and that is why we are calling for a task force to be set up to go through the biosecurity measures. As the Senator has said, there is a risk if this gets in. The average plantation in this country is 78 ha. Many farmers planted as part of a pension plan or to fund kids going to college, etc. We have a scenario now where, if this gets in, it will be the final nail in the coffin of forestry.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Can I just wrap up, because I am conscious other members would like to come in? Mr. Fleming has said something really alarming there, but it is something we sort of knew anyway. He is now questioning the integrity of the inspection system. I share his concerns, so that is not a criticism of him, but Mr. Fleming is putting it out there to us.

That is a challenge to us. Why are we importing so much stuff? We are bringing in stuff through the ACRES scheme. We are encouraging environmental schemes but we are bringing stuff in and now we hear it is not adequately checked. I think it would be helpful for the committee if he could supply us with more information on that. We do not need to go into it now, but that is alarming and a concern based on our absolute commitment to the forestry sector.

I will be very brief. We welcomed the €1.3 billion allocated to the forestry sector last year but, unfortunately, the money is not going to farmers. The forestry programme is not farmer-friendly. The only people the programme suits are the investment funds, the likes of Gresham House and Coillte. It does not suit farmers. I will mention one simple fact. If one plants a 20-acre site, 35% of it is unproductive as there is 15% for biodiversity and 20% for broadleaf. No farmer in his right mind is going to give up 35% for biodiversity unless he is going to get a proper payment or a lengthy payment on it.

Senator Tim Lombard

I welcome the IFA and its participation in this debate. I seek clarity on the key issues the witnesses raise, in particular about the suspension of imports and how that could affect the marketplace. I totally understand the IFA's position on ash dieback and the concerns the farming community has due to that terrible experience and how it was treated by the Department.

In his opening statement Mr. Gorman mentioned two beetles in Scotland. Could he elaborate on both of them and their potential effect on crops? Could he outline where they are in Scotland and their history? Ms O'Sullivan might help with the issue. Clarity is required on both beetles. One is well renowned in Scotland. I would welcome some clarity on the beetles and their potential to damage the forestry crop.

Mr. Francie Gorman

It is the spruce bark beetle and the eight-toothed bark beetle. The fear we have is that within a few miles of the border of the pest-free area where the timber comes from in Scotland, there is evidence that the bark beetle has infested forestry. That is of huge concern to us. Ms O'Sullivan might like to come in on that.

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Yes. I will start off with the great spruce bark beetle, which is the one of concern in the pest-free area that has been demarcated and where it has moved. That came into the UK in 1982. It started in England and it has been moving steadily and rapidly. There have been bark beetles in spruce forests for years, but what is happening with the longer periods of warmer weather, the drought and the stresses trees are under is that instead of producing once over the year, there are cycles and they could be producing three times, which has caused a rapid explosion in the beetle population. There is no cold spell when it dies so that population has increased and it is moving steadily throughout Europe and the UK.

To go back to the setup in County Clare, my understanding is that it has been going on for a couple of months. We only found out about it a month or six weeks ago. Samples were sent all over Europe when the beetle was found but they could not find out what type of beetle it was. They sent it to America and it was identified as a South American Monterey Pine engraver beetle.

As to the measures that are being taken, they are trying to contain it in Cratloe in County Clare. I am not aware what security measures they have introduced down there. All we know is that 21 farmers are affected and they have notified the surrounding areas where there are pine plantations. The Department has not gone through the security measures it has introduced down there.

Senator Tim Lombard

Does Mr. Fleming reckon the beetle came in through Foynes?

Mr. Jason Fleming

That is what we reckon. We are not 100% on that but a lot of stuff is coming into Foynes and I think that is where they are saying it came in.

Senator Tim Lombard

I will move on to my last issue. Will Mr. Gorman clarify what impact, if any, this could have on the mills themselves? The IFA is proposing a temporary suspension of imports. We have a significant amount of timber coming in and the timber industry is an important one for the nation. Does he think there will be a negative impact on the milling industry itself and how could that be addressed?

Mr. Francie Gorman

There will not be an impact if the review is done in a timely fashion. We believe there is enough of a timber supply in the country to keep the construction industry functioning in an orderly fashion. At the end of the day, this temporary suspension must take place and the review must be done in a timely fashion.

We cannot end up in a situation in four, five or ten years we have similar to ash dieback. This is shattering farmers' confidence in policy in the forestry sector. It is something that has to be addressed. This is our answer to it. I have not seen a better answer to it. The risk posed to the forestry sector by this is so great that if it is not done in a timely and immediate fashion, we will pay for it for decades to come.

Senator Paul Daly

This is my final question. Has the IFA done any work on this? If hypothetically speaking the department officials come in here this evening and gives us everything we ask for, how do we square the circle that is the fact that we have two economies on the island and we are under two different Ministries - the whole North issue? We could stop importing in the morning, but there is nothing to stop timber coming into Belfast and then down the M1 motorway. Has the IFA looked into that, especially now that we hear the beetle is airborne? What if it gets into the North, even if it can only fly a couple of miles in all? Insects or diseases do not know borders. Has the IFA done any work with counterparts in the North? Are they on alert also?

Mr. Francie Gorman

I cannot speak for the Department of agriculture. We consult with our colleagues in the Ulster Farmers' Union, UFU, on a regular basis. I cannot say whether we have discussed this issue with them but for me, if it comes in, there has got to be a full 32-county approach to this. The bark beetle will not see borders. The one thing we have at the moment is the sea border between the island of Ireland and Great Britain. That is a prevention in itself. That is why it is important that every consignment of timber is checked in a thorough way to make sure that it does not come in. There has got to be greater joined-up thinking between ourselves on this side of the Irish Sea and the authorities in Great Britain as well to try to make sure that it does not come in in the first place.

It is vital that that pest-free area in Scotland is preserved if we are going to get the quality and quantity of timber we need in this country in from Scotland. It has to be a joined-up approach both North and South, and across the water, to prevent this. That is why we believe, and we keep going back to it, in the need for a temporary suspension until we get this review in place. We are not looking for a review that is going to take forever and a day to finish. It has to be done in an efficient and timely fashion.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I thank the witnesses for coming in. Like the other speakers, I wish Mr. Gorman the best of luck, and the vice president as well.

Mr. Fleming spoke about the nurseries. An announcement was made in the UK in the past week that they are cutting their funding for forestry by 50% this year for their targets. The nurseries in the UK will have an abundance of plants that will probably come into Northern Ireland and other places. If we were hoping to keep it alive here, I would say that our forestry industry is dead at the moment. I think 45 ha of this 1 acre dream world they were on about is all that is being done. We understood that we could plant if there was less than 35 ml of peat in the 1 ha, but now we cannot. It is in the doldrums. The big worry I would have is that we will not have a nursery left in Ireland to be quite frank about it. I would like the witnesses' views on that.

Mr. Gorman referred to €1.3 billion for the forestry programme. It is €300 million; that is what it is. It is €1.3 billion over 20 years. The Government has done the greatest three-card trick it can do. The people here who went abroad to Brussels, namely, Deputy Cahill, Senator Lombard, Deputy Kehoe and myself, learned that.

I raise a third issue before I move on to the famous beetle. On ash dieback, I presume the witnesses have seen the document the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, has received. There are realistic things in it but the funding will not be given to help people with ash dieback. I would like their thoughts on those three issues before I move on.

Mr. Francie Gorman

I thank the Deputy. We will pass on his good wishes and those of Senator Daly to Alice Doyle.

Ash dieback has been an absolute disaster. It is completely unacceptable that the Minister of State has had the report for four months and nothing has been done on it. As the Deputy noted, that has shattered the confidence of farmers in the forestry sector. Under the €1.3 billion forestry programme, there is a requirement to have a certain amount of land set aside for hardwoods and areas of biodiversity. No farmer will consider entering that programme with those restrictions in place. The €1.3 billion programme may well become the preserve of big business and not farmers. That would be a shame.

I am checking my notes on the Deputy's second question.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Mr. Fleming might be better placed to answer it. The UK is cutting its forestry targets and funding by 50%. The quantity of nursery trees that are available will flood the market out of the UK. Northern Ireland is in the UK and, as we know, this beetle can fly. It will put awful pressure on our nurseries. When we were not ticking over in Ireland in the past, nurseries were able to sell some of the nursery trees to Scotland and different places. If there is a 50% abundance in the UK, we are in trouble.

Mr. Francie Gorman

As we said, the biosecurity measures need to be in place. The problem with ACRES is that the requirement to plant by 31 March cannot be supplied by the nursery industry here. The quicks are just not in place. There has been a relaxation in allowing the importation of quicks into the country to help to meet the requirement for farmers to plant whitethorn by 31 March. If that requirement were spread out over the five years of the scheme, it would have given a signpost to the nursery industry to sow their quicks and have them in place over the five-year period. That would have been a better way of doing it.

There may well be a flood of nursery stock coming in from the UK. The biosecurity measures must be in place for them in the same way we are looking for in terms of the bark beetle. We have already seen with ash dieback that when they are not in place, devastating consequences occur. It is the same with animal disease. A lot of the diseases in our animals came in from importing stock into the country. This is too serious an issue for the Department to say that under EU plant law, it is not allowed to address this issue until the bark beetle is found in this country. That is not acceptable. The Department must go back, look at this and make sure it can be addressed. If we wait until the bark beetle comes in, it will be too late.

Mr. Jason Fleming

In the past couple of years, as the Deputy rightly said, the Sitka spruce plants went to Scotland because 8,000 to 12,000 ha were being planted there per year. The broadleaves went to Northern Ireland when we were planting only 2,000 ha. We had a target of 8,000 ha but the mills had sufficient stock for that. The growers got caught that year but they got away with it. The Deputy is 100% right that if we have a scenario as we go forward where we plant up to 2,000 ha, which is what we have done in the past couple of years and less last year, and we have stock and no outlet for it, especially in the likes of the North, England and so on, then the nurseries here could be in big trouble. One thing I will say about the nurseries is they are very supportive of our cause in regard to ash dieback, the bark beetle and the whole situation in County Clare.

On ash dieback, we want all the recommendations in the report implemented. We agree 100% with the Minister of State on that. She set up a review group and we support her 100% on the recommendations. All we are looking for is that they be implemented. We do not know where the report is at right now but we do not want it gathering dust on a shelf in the Minister of State's office. We want it brought to the Cabinet and through the Dáil and implemented as quickly as possible. The simple fact is that we if we could get the funding for ash dieback and the farmers in some way sorted, it would be a big help for us in bringing a small bit of confidence back into the sector, as Mr. Gorman said. Dealing with the bark beetle and the task force going through the biosecurity measures are vital from our perspective. We are getting it in the ear every day. If the bark beetle gets in and the trees start failing, we will be in desperate trouble in this country. We are in trouble anyway. I said at the IFA AGM that forestry was never in a worse place. The Minister of State disagreed with me but I stand by it. Forestry was never in a worse place in the history of the State than it is right now.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I will move on now to the bark beetle. I am no expert on all the different types of beetles. I understand one beetle was found on sawn timber that was imported into the UK. My understanding is that there has been a Sitka spruce beetle in parts of the UK for years. The witnesses will correct me if I am wrong but I understand there is a section of Scotland from which Ireland buys its timber where there are biosecurity measures to monitor any dangers in that way. Is that correct? I am asking these questions in order that we have the answers when we raise the issues with the Department.

The witnesses referred to a temporary suspension. At the moment, with the timber coming from Scotland and what be have in the country, we will, fortunately, be able to get rid of it all. If we suspend something, will there be job losses in the processing industry in different places in Ireland? My understanding from calls I have had, which I am sure others have received, is that one of our plants might close down. The witnesses will correct me if I am wrong on this. This is coming from the people who import some of the timber. Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK are all one in their forestry programme. I agree 100% with Mr. Gorman that we need a 32-county system. If trees are planted near Pettigo, for example, it is surely likely that the bark beetle will fly into Donegal. Is it very hard to control this? Is there are any sort of spray for them? My understanding is that good, hard weather like we are getting now might kill them off altogether. We are having that weather here and in the UK at the moment. I would like to hear the thoughts of the witnesses on those points.

Mr. Francie Gorman

Going back to the economic impact, the greatest economic impact that will be felt in the forestry sector if the bark beetle comes in will be at farm level. That is 100% the case. If we want a forestry sector in this country, we must be prepared to support our farmers, in particular, and the wider industry as well. A total of 65% of Sitka spruce forestry is owned by farmers. It is hugely important that the economic consequences at farm level are considered first. If the review is done in a timely and efficient manner, the temporary suspension will not have to be for a huge length of time. There is enough supply of timber in the chain to be able to service the industry in the meantime. It is about getting the review done in a timely and efficient fashion and getting back to business as normal after that. If the bark beetle comes in and gets its foot under the table here, there will be more than one sawmill going out of business.

As we said already, the easiest way for bark beetles to come in is through timber consignments. All right, they may be airborne or may come in through the machinery, but timber is the biggest carrier. That is why the review needs to focus on making sure that every consignment of timber is inspected, that the rules and regulations are enforced and that enough staff are in place to do the job properly. We must also look at the legislation side and ensure that EU plant law is not used as a fallback mechanism for doing nothing. That is not good enough. If EU plant law states it cannot do anything about it until the bark beetle comes in here, it is not good enough. We cannot suspend the importation of timber into this country because there may be bark beetle infestations in a consignment. If we wait until the consignment comes in and we find the beetles are here, it is too late. Perhaps Ms O'Sullivan will come in on some of those points.

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Deputy Fitzmaurice's research seems to be on the nose. The European spruce bark beetle has been in the UK since 1982 and there is evidence of it in the pest-free area in western Scotland. There is surveillance and monitoring and the committee can see that. I will supply a map to the committee so members can see the areas where the bark beetle has been identified and the years in which it has been identified.

The eight-toothed spruce bark beetle only came in 2018. As the Deputy said, it arrived on a consignment of timber. I did not know this but the Deputy said it was imported timber. That happened in Scotland. It was not a breeding pair. The beetle was found and captured in one of the traps.

The Deputy's comments on frost absolutely reflect the situation. The beetles breed in springtime when the weather gets warmer. We have now had multiple reproduction cycles because of the longer summers. That is behind it. In Europe, since 2012 and particularly since 2018, we have seen a rapid expansion of the beetle. That is to do with our warmer climate. Frosts and things like that absolutely stop the reproduction cycle. Those were the points made by the Deputy.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I thank our guests for coming in and for their detailed opening statement. I put on the record my congratulations to Mr. Gorman and Ms Alice Doyle, and extend my best wishes to them both.

Our guests are asking for a temporary suspension, which appears sensible, given the fact that there is enough timber. If there was an issue with timber supply, that would not be an option or it would be far more difficult to seek. Have our guests engaged with the sawmills on that proposal? We have heard about the time needed to put those measures together. How quickly can that be done? Have our guests a good idea of the measures that are needed? Is it more of a question of the measures that need to be put in place in Scotland as opposed to the measures we need to put in place here? Have our guests had any engagement with the Department or the Minister? Has the Department engaged with the Scottish forestry agency to hear specifically what has been put in place and the measures it is carrying out in that regard?

Mr. Francie Gorman

I will ask Ms O'Sullivan to comment on that.

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

We do not have all the answers so we need the skillsets of those who have more experience with the issue. That requires engaging first with what is happening in Scotland. We need greater transparency around what is actually being done. We need the situation to be very simplified. We must get clarity around the detail of the surveillance and its frequency. We also need to know what options are available to increase that. We need to hear directly from the Forestry Commission in Scotland about what it is doing. It had good information on its website but we need to speak with representatives of the commission and understand the details of the inspection regime.

We also need to find out what is happening with the forest industry, the transport and the mills at a Scottish level, particularly around the harvest. We need to understand what biosecurity measures are happening within the forests on the ground and at the ports. We also need to know about the general surveillance. We need the same in respect of the ports in Ireland. We need to learn what options are available. As a member of the European Union, we are curtailed. We need to understand what biosecurity measures could be introduced. We must consider the example of the Czech Republic, which lost enormous volumes of timber, perhaps billions of euro worth. It changed its legislation as a protective measure. We must consider all our options.

A temporary suspension will make a change. We need a whole-of-industry approach. We need to be able to manage and curtail the beetle in a short space of time. We need to speak with our sawmills to see how the situation can be managed and take a whole-of-industry approach. We have written to each of the larger sawmills. They have said they do not support the temporary suspension but support the establishment of the task force and have written to the Minister to express that support. They recognise our concerns and are happy to support the establishment of the task force.

Mr. Jason Fleming

I will add to that. Licensing has been a big problem over the past couple of years. On the temporary suspension, we are not looking for a big thing. If we were to get licences out within four months, which is in the departmental guidelines, we would have no problem. The problem we have is that until a few years ago, it was taking four or five years to get a licence. The waiting time has reduced to 15 or 16 months but the recommendation within the departmental guidelines is that licences should be sent out within four months. If the whole licensing system was simplified, we would have no problem. As Ms O'Sullivan has said, the timber council is supporting the task force. Most forestry groups in this country are supporting the task force. I will not start naming them but that is true of nurseries as well. It is a win-win for everyone to set up this task force. All we are looking for is to go through the biosecurity measures on which we all agree. We will have no problem with imports after that.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

It is important we have this conversation today because there is a lot of concern out there. Farmers and the others affected see the way in which those impacted by ash dieback have been treated and because the issue has not been dealt with, it puts a massive dent in the confidence of the sector. This adds to that. At the end of the day, we are not going to have forestry up and running and successful without farmers. They are absolutely key. We can put all the money in the world into a forestry programme but when a forestry programme has massive restrictions that are limiting and unworkable, all the money in the world will not get forestry up and running. This is another layer that needs to be dealt with.

The Minister came back to me just before Christmas on the implementation plan for ash dieback. He said at the time that a submission was being prepared and would be with the Cabinet in the very near future. It does not seem that will happen anytime soon. We need to see that implementation plan and as a committee, we can put on further pressure to get that plan, which is badly needed.

The second of our guests' asks is a matter that needs consideration and requires a very tight timeframe. I thank them for their contributions.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I thank the representatives of the IFA, particularly Mr. Gorman, for coming in. It is good to have him here and I look forward to his term of office. He has hit the ground running and I am sure he will make a great impact and will be a great representative for the farming community.

Much of what I was going to ask has been touched on. Our guests have clarified that 21 farmers are affected in the Cratloe area of County Clare. How large an area of commercial forestry, in terms of the acreage, are we talking about?

Mr. Jason Fleming

We do not have those figures to hand. The information we have is that 21 farmers have been affected. We do not have the amount of hectares involved and so on. It is a massive concern for us, going forward.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Ms O'Sullivan cited some examples of the global situation. What has been the impact? I know it is doomsday for the farmers. What has happened to farmers in the Czech Republic?

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Jason Fleming

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Specifically, the checks would have been a major issue and they have very porous land borders there. There were no temporary bans implemented there.

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

I could not answer that. I know that different countries tried different systems to secure it. That information is just being gathered. I am not aware of any temporary bans. The only one I know of is the one in the larch, where when it was identified a temporary suspension was introduced.

Mr. Francie Gorman

It was raised on numerous occasions. I would not say it was raised at every meeting. It is funny; during elections, you see different issues in different parts of the country but the same issues were coming up, whether in west Cork, Donegal or south Leinster. The forestry issue did come up. There is great frustration at the inability to get licences to harvest crops in a timely fashion. There is a requirement to replant once farmers harvest but they do not have confidence to plant extra new ground. The set-aside for hardwood and biodiversity means that they are essentially giving away 35% of the land they are going to plant. Farmers will not do that. As I said earlier, even with the €1.3 billion forestry programme, there is a fear that this will not be accessed by ordinary farmers, but by big business. The Department has to look at that again and to address the issues that have come up time and time again. The ash dieback review has been going on for more than a decade. It has reported and the recommendations are there but, four months on, they have not been acted upon. The Deputy mentioned how slowly things move in the political arena. Before he came in, Senator Boyhan mentioned the same issue.. That is not good enough. People have been waiting a decade for that issue to be addressed. The Department set up its own review. It has now reported and those measures should be implemented immediately. If that issue and the issue we are here for, the bark beetle, are not addressed, farmers will not have the confidence to join the forestry programme and plant their land. There are other options.

An Cathaoirleach

There are three non-members present. I call on Deputy Shanahan. I will give them ten minutes each.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to come in. I congratulate Mr. Gorman. I met him at the National Ploughing Championships. Well done on your success. I say the same to the other officers. I take an interest in a number of areas in forestry. Even though I am from Waterford, where we do not have the same volume of forestry as other counties, it is very important for the climate and we also have a large board processor in Waterford. On the ash dieback programme, I share Mr. Gorman's disappointment that it has not come to fruition at yet. I understand the Minister is to bring forward recommendations. The committee needs to push that along. I am sure it is doing all that is possible. As Mr. Gorman said, if farmers cannot get recompensed, they are not going to go back into the programme.

I would certainly support the development of a national forestry agency and the task force that the IFA is calling relating to the bark beetle existential threat to the forest industry in Ireland. It is interesting the way we go at things in this country. I said this to one of the other members here earlier. We have people bringing honeybee queens in their pockets into Ireland. They are supposed to be licensed. There is a danger of bringing lice into the honeybee population. We have now, obviously, timber, and we are not 100% sure how well regulated the market is. I worked in the meat industry previously. The witnesses will recall the Government's response when horse meat was found in the supply chain and how it could move on that. I have also seen how independent brokers can move product around. There is a great risk that this beetle will come in here. As they say, what will we do then?

Framing this argument in terms of the impact to farmers is not the way to go. There is a significant economic hit here to the country, and also in terms of the climate action policy. At the end of the day, despite the volume of hardwoods, the majority of trees to be planted under climate action are Sitka spruce. There is no point in planting them if they will be diseased. Maybe the IFA needs to bring that issue up with the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action.

In terms of the temporary suspension to wood - the IFA is saying we have enough timber in the country to supply all comers - it is my understanding that a significant volume of the imported timber goes back out as exported pressed broad, etc. Has the IFA factored in fully the requirement the processors would have if it was decided not to import timber while the task force was being put together?

I am disappointed with the response, but not surprised, by the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, in terms of meeting the IFA and trying to develop the situation from here. We have paid lip service for far too long, both to agriculture and to the climate action plan, with respect to forestry. I would like to see that change.

I am not a member of this committee but I am glad to get the opportunity to make those points. As I say, the IFA needs to move the argument away. This is not solely an agricultural argument. This is a national strategic economic argument and we need to start framing it in that way.

Mr. Francie Gorman

The Deputy is absolutely right on that. Our contributions here, from the opening statement, were framed maybe more in answer to questions but the Deputy is 100% right about the economic impact beyond the farm gate and on climate action. Ms O'Sullivan referenced that earlier on.

Does Ms O'Sullivan want to come in on the other issue there?

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Obviously, the timber that comes in is processed and is exported and the UK is our main market.

If one is calling for a temporary suspension, there will be issues. We are lucky that we have Coillte, which is a State body which could be able to support this and ensure the mobilisation to act. We have mechanisms within the country that could be used if the review was carried out quickly and efficiently. We are lucky there; we have the private sector. This can be managed and co-ordinated and it would require that.

We need a whole-of-industry response to the issue of plant health. It is not just to the Department and the farmers. We need the industry involved. They are involved in the transportation.

There needs to be greater transparency and communication. That was highlighted in the ash dieback review. Are there the capabilities and the resources within the Department to do that?

This will increasingly be a problem. As the Deputy said rightly, it definitely impacts economically our strategic plan to grow the sector.

Deputy Violet-Anne Wynne

I thank the Cathaoirleach for letting me in. I am also not a member of this committee but I am from County Clare. I know these guys have been discussing the issue of the 21 farmers affected in Cratloe.

I recently had a meeting with the local IFA representatives - Mr. Tom Lane, Mr. Tom Holmes, Mr. Michael Davern and Mr. Darren Sheehy. At that meeting they outlined to me the awareness that there was bark beetle in Cratloe. What engagements has the Department had with those farmers, as I am not aware of much engagement? No farmer in my constituency should be out of pocket because of what seems to be a lack of prevention and lack of oversight, as the witnesses have mentioned, in terms of biosecurity. This is a major concern for Clare because, as the committee will be aware, 20% of Clare is forested and the county has the largest plantation of ash trees. It is a major concern for the farmers there.

The ash dieback issue has been spoken about at length. The recommendations have been available since September and four months later, the implementation plan has not been forthcoming. For many farmers in Clare, there is a lack of confidence now because of the management of the ash dieback and also the more than a decade that has gone by. It has been no good to them. It has diminished their confidence in being able to address the bark beetle issue as well and also is affecting farmers going into forestry, which is also a major concern.

On the questions that I have, people have pushed these guys on the timeline of the temporary suspension and the review. With the acknowledgement of the lack of the implementation plan, that is where the anticipation is coming from.

Mr. Gorman himself mentioned "the political will". I suppose it is just a trend that we are seeing when it comes to forestry as we know how long it took for the forestry programme to come forward even though most would feel it is not fit purpose as it is.

Another part of the ash dieback issue that I wanted to touch on is that there is ash dieback on local authority land, especially on the roadside, and that this is causing hazardous conditions for the public, in particular, given the inclement weather that we face now. It is a major concern. The local IFA representatives explained to me that we need the Department to instruct the local authorities to remove them, and we have not had that so far. I would be grateful if the witnesses could touch on that issue as to why we are not getting that kind of joined-up thinking from the Department to local authority level and the fact that it has experienced significant delays as well.

I was at a meeting in Clare just before Christmas with Tom and John Fitzgerald. Clare is one of the biggest counties that was affected with ash dieback. Believe it or not, it took over the whole meeting. We had a good meeting on all types of forestry as in we discussed a lot of topics but the ash dieback was the main concern. They are looking for action from the likes of ourselves to lead them and to try to get this review implemented. As I said earlier, it would go a long way to getting a small bit of confidence back into the sector.

The Deputy mentioned the roadside trees. That is a massive concern for us. As Mr. Gorman will outline, the likes of me bring it up on a monthly basis at the national council and we have good support on that. We have written to the local authorities and the Department but what we are looking for here is support for us as farmers to take down these trees from the local authorities. To be fair, from a health and safety point of view, we would not advise any farmer to go tackle these trees on their own, especially roadside trees, because they are unsafe. Whatever part one goes at, a branch could fall, etc. Especially over the wintertime, with guys walking, cycling, etc., these trees are a health and safety risk. The sooner there is a package put in place to support us, the better. We are not looking for full compensation. We are only looking for support to take down the trees. The cost of taking down these trees is frightening because we must have a traffic management plan on either side and we need tree surgeons who know what they are doing to take down the trees. The health and safety aspect of this is a massive concern for us. With the cost of this, farmers themselves might attack the trees themselves and we do not want that.

Mr. Francie Gorman

In response to Deputy Flaherty's question earlier, we will try to get a handle on the acreage involved in Clare if we can and get back to the committee on it.

The issue about the review is best practice should dictate that that would be an ongoing practice within the Department anyway.

The Department should be doing it either way. All we look for is that there are proper biosecurity measures in place and that a proper inspection regime is put in place. The Department is very good at inspecting in various other ways, to be fair. We want the funding and the proper protocols to be put in place. That should be an ongoing practice. That should be best practice in the Department anyway.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I apologise, I was at a budgetary meeting next door. I warmly welcome the deputation. I congratulate Mr. Gorman who is the 17th president of the association and wish him every good luck and success. I look forward to working with him in the best way possible - in a proactive and solid way - during his term. I thank him for being here. It is very timely.

The whole issue with what is happening is the lack of concern by the Government and the Department about the threat posed by the bark beetle. I thank the IFA for being out in front with its concern on behalf of farmers. I thank Mr. Jason Fleming, in particular, for his dogged determination in representing people who are in the forestry sector and want to be in the forestry sector but because of inaction on the part of the Government and the Department are unable to do so. There would nearly want to be something wrong with someone who says they want to plant a forestry. They would want to get their head examined because the people who are there see the obstacles, red tape and bureaucracy they will be put up against. Why would anybody want to draw that on themselves? I thank Mr. Fleming and everybody else on the team for their determination in this regard.

I would listen very strongly to the whole notion of a suspension of importation for fear of what road it could lead us down. Many months ago, working with Mr. Fleming, I put parliamentary questions forward raising this issue, in case the Minister had not heard about it. Sometimes they have to be told things or they do things that they should know. They are still asleep at the wheel. The total disregard the Minister and the Department are showing the forestry sector is astounding. I thank the Chairman of the committee for always being on the side of the farmer and the side of the people who would like to see their forests protected and get their licences in a timely fashion. He uses his role here very well and I compliment him for that.

Having said all of that, somebody would want to try to get them to wake up. I hope that as a result of the IFA being here this evening, the message will get back because it needs to, very strongly. When I was doing clinics at one time I would meet people who would talk about forestry being an option. To be honest, nobody is talking about forestry now. When land comes up for sale now, there are restrictions with regard to the amount of peat that must be on it and all of that. There are many hurdles in our way now. It is impossible to plant. It is not attractive to plant. Anybody who thinks it is attractive is only codding themselves. There has to be a big shake-up. I do not know what the future will bring. I am glad that the IFA is there and that they have sound people representing the forestry sector. I am glad of that because when it comes to forestry, sound people are scarce.

Mr. Francie Gorman

I thank the Deputy for his comments. He has enunciated our argument probably better than we could have done ourselves. There is no doubt that the forestry sector and the IFA are in safe hands with Mr. Fleming. We went through all of the issues raised by the Deputy earlier in the meeting and they are of huge concern to us. I thank the Deputy for his support on that.

An Cathaoirleach

Does the Deputy want to come back in?

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

No, I am fine. I thank you for allowing me to attend the meeting.

An Cathaoirleach

That is okay. We will suspend for five minutes to allow the Department representatives to come in.

Mr. Francie Gorman

Before we finish up, our director general would like to say a few words.

An Cathaoirleach

We are over time, so Mr. McDonald must be brief.

Mr. Damian McDonald

I do not have much to say, other than to pick out two or three key points to emphasise. We have discussed the problems with ash dieback. I know people are comparing the delay in implementing the ash dieback report, and how long it is taking to set up a task force that might work here. They are very different things. Unfortunately, we are trying to clean up a mess after ash dieback. What we are trying to do here is prevent a similar mess with the bark beetle. I understand why some Deputies and Senators might be concerned about calling for an import ban. It is not something the IFA would do lightly because we are a pro-trade association and benefit from trade ourselves. The Chinese market was opened again today for beef and we were glad of that news. However, what other option do we have in a scenario where we do not have confidence in the system that is there to prevent the bark beetle from coming in? What other option is there? I say to the committee and to those who might be a bit nervous about a ban that I can see no reason in the world a task force cannot be set up straight away to get working on this. I cannot understand why this has not been done already.

I would like to make a distinction. I do not think we can depend on what is happening in Scotland and other countries. We must protect our own industry here. We need to make sure we have the correct safeguards in Ireland to prevent the bark beetle from coming into our country. We talk about timeframes. We all know and have seen it all too often that if it comes in, there will be a massive panic. There will be a task force the next morning and a report the following evening and we will all be at it. As the president stated, prevention is far better than cure here. There will be a time where we may have to park commercial interests for a small period of time to think about and protect the long-term interests of our sector.

Mr. Francie Gorman

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to attend. I thank Deputies and Senators on this committee for their support. I look forward to working with them during my term. I thank everybody for their good wishes. I will pass them on to Ms Alice Doyle as well. On behalf of the association, I thank everyone for giving us this chance.

An Cathaoirleach

This is a hugely serious issue. The economic consequences of the bark beetle getting into the country do not bear contemplating. I thank the witnesses for their contribution this evening. I wish Mr. Gorman the very best of luck for his term. We will now suspend for five minutes while we change the-----

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Can I have an answer to a "Yes" or "No" question before the witnesses depart? Following from what Mr. McDonald said about his ask, would it be agreeable to him if a review was implemented straight away with one of the conditions being that it would look at the option of a ban if needs be? The immediate thing is the establishment of the review.

Mr. Damian McDonald

We would like a temporary ban because we do not have confidence in the present regime. We accept that, as the delegates have outlined, not everybody in the sector agrees with that. Obviously, it would have consequences for some of the sawmills. We see no reason we cannot move ahead with a task force straight away. I cannot see any logic for not doing that.

An Cathaoirleach

Gentlemen, we will suspend for five minutes.

Sitting suspended at 7.28 p.m. and resumed at 7.33 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

I draw attention to the fact that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has full defence against any defamation action about anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. 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 about 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 publication by the witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee or any matters arising from the proceedings.

In this session, the committee will hear from witnesses from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Mr. Barry Delany, director of forestry; Mr. Seamus Dunne, senior inspector, forestry inspectorate division; and Ms Deirdre Fay, senior inspector, horticulture and plant health division. They are welcome to today's committee meeting. Their opening statement has been circulated among members. I will allow them a couple of minutes to give a summary of that statement and then we will proceed to questions and answers.

Mr. Barry Delany

I thank the Deputies and Senators for inviting us here today to speak on the threat of bark beetles to Irish forests and how it aligns with Ireland's plant health policy generally.

Promoting and safeguarding plant health is a key strategic principle of the plant health and biosecurity strategy for the period 2020 to 2025. The strategy is underpinned by three key strategic principles: risk anticipation, surveillance and awareness. It sets out the importance of plant health and biosecurity for Ireland as well as ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are aware of the risks to plant health in Ireland and their role and responsibilities to reduce that risk. A mid-term review of the strategy was published in December 2022.

Ireland is recognised as having a favourable plant health status. It has the highest number of protected zones in the EU, with 23 pests and diseases listed. A protected zone is a region in which a harmful organism that has established in one or more parts of the EU is not present.

Ireland is a contracting party of the International Plant Protection Convention of the United Nations and an active member of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. It is co-operating with countries around the world to develop global standards to protect plants within trade.

The trade and movement of plants and plant products into and within the EU is governed by the EU Plant Health Regulation and the official controls regulations. These regulations harmonise the rules on the introduction of plants and plant products to the EU from countries outside the EU and the movement of plants and plant products within the EU. The EU plant health regulatory framework focuses particularly on the prevention of the entry or spread of plant pests within the EU territory. It sets out detailed rules for the early detection and eradication of Union quarantine pests if found present in the EU territory.

Within the EU, Ireland is a member of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, SCOPAFF. This committee, in addition to doing other duties, plays a key role in ensuring that EU measures on plant health are practical and effective.

Ireland relies on trade as a principal source of economic growth, yet plant pests know no borders, and trade can facilitate the introduction and spread of plant pests. It is critical, therefore, that trade be facilitated in a way that minimises phytosanitary risks.

Specifically concerning bark beetles, Ireland has several native bark beetle species associated with coniferous tree species. These do not cause significant damage and are not a cause of concern. There are several European bark beetle species of concern that are not currently present in Ireland. Within EU legislation, Ireland has protected zone status for the six European bark beetle species, recognising Ireland's freedom from these species currently and granting special protection against their potential introduction.

There is a very wide range of non-European bark beetles named within EU legislation. As the members heard earlier, the Department announced in December the first findings in Ireland of Pseudips mexicanus, known as the Monterey pine engraver, in an area near Cratloe in County Clare. The beetles were found in bark beetle traps, which have been used for many years as part of the Department's annual bark beetle surveys. No findings have been made in trees. This beetle is not thought to be a pest of economic significance for Ireland and its finding will not affect the movement of Irish spruce logs and timber from other non-pine species.

Coniferous roundwood is both imported into and exported from Ireland by Irish industry. All imports into Ireland must be compliant with the EU plant health regulation and importers must be registered as professional operators. Similarly, any action Ireland takes in response to threats from pests must also be compliant with EU plant health regulations and the International Plant Protection Convention.

Importers in Ireland are prohibited from importing roundwood from areas known to be affected by quarantine bark beetle species. The only area internationally from where imports to Ireland of coniferous roundwood with bark is permitted is a specific UK Government authority assigned pest-free area in the west of Scotland. There have been no findings of spruce bark beetles within the pest-free area. To maintain the pest-free area, the Scottish authorities carry out regular surveys for the beetles. These include site inspections for timber due to be traded to the island of Ireland, pheromone lures located at timber handling sites, billet or pheromone traps located in and around the PFA, and biannual aerial surveys.

Imports of roundwood logs from this pest-free area in Scotland are subject to an inspection regime. This involves documentary, identity and plant health physical checks at the port. All imports from the pest-free area must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, which is issued by the UK Government authority in accordance with the International Plant Protection Convention, to attest that the logs meet the phytosanitary import requirements of Ireland and the EU and are in conformity with the certifying statement.

In addition, and to support the proof of origin of the roundwood from within the pest-free area, phytosanitary certificates provide identification of the specific forest location from which the roundwood is sourced. All documents associated with roundwood imports are inspected to verify the phytosanitary import requirements for the protected zone of Ireland are satisfied. Inspections at the port involve sampling of logs from the shipment in accordance with a standard operational procedure. A sample of logs from various parts of the ship are brought to a safe examination area and are visually examined. Any beetles found are identified and any beetles found to date are beetles that are already present in Ireland and not of quarantine significance. There are three ports where roundwood logs are imported into Ireland, namely those at Rushbrooke, Passage West in County Cork, and Wicklow. These three ports are designated border control posts for roundwood logs where inspection facilities have been put in place.

As long as the Scottish authorities are in position to continue to demonstrate the area from which logs are being sourced is free from harmful organisms, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is bound to recognise this area's freedom under the phytosanitary trading rules of the World Trade Organization and application of sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, measures. The Department has been engaging and will continue to engage directly with Scottish forestry authorities, Northern Ireland and the European Commission to ensure the pest-free status of the island of Ireland is maintained.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Delany. There is considerable concern among all stakeholders over the bark beetle and the major financial implications if it comes into the country. Have we Department personnel in the ports in Scotland where the wood is examined and certified as free of the beetle? Is our approach purely on the basis that we are being told that the parts of Scotland where the timber is felled are classified as free of the beetle? What is being done at the ports? How many personnel have we at the three ports Mr. Delany just mentioned? Exactly what examinations are taking place at those ports? Unfortunately, we have experienced ash dieback and the major devastation it has caused for those unfortunate enough to have it on their land. Twenty years' growth has gone down the Suwannee, causing a great economic loss. However, this would be minuscule by comparison with the financial devastation if the bark beetle got into our spruce plantations.

Have our personnel in Scotland been checking that everything is being certified correctly there. How many personnel have we in the ports here, and what checks are being done in the ports? Is Mr. Delany satisfied, as director of forestry, that he has the resources at his disposal to ensure that there is enough biosecurity in place to ensure the beetle does not get into our country?

The last question is on Northern Ireland and the fact our Border with Northern Ireland is obviously unprotected. Are we happy that the same precautions are being taken in Northern Ireland, with timber coming in from Scotland to Northern Ireland, and that the beetle cannot come into our jurisdiction through the back door?

Mr. Barry Delany

I will start with that one first. Ireland and Northern Ireland work as a single epidemiological unit under the EU plant health rules. In effect, we work as one single unit with regard to import trade. Interestingly, in the past two to three years, they have not taken any imports of coniferous roundwood from the pest-free area. They have not taken any imports of roundwood into their plants in Northern Ireland in recent years. They have been supplied by local supply, as we understand it.

I want to come back to the Chair's point about resources, and I believe we have the resources to deal with that. Obviously, if there are any positives from Brexit, it is that we have fabulous facilities in Dublin Port and in Wexford. In addition to that, we have agreed inspection posts solely for the roundwood, through Wicklow Port and predominantly Rushbrooke. The other port is in Cork but it is predominantly between those two. We have sufficient staff to inspect those consignments. We get pre-notified when they come in. They are not released until we are satisfied the laboratory and our entomologists are happy the consignment is free from the quarantined pest we are concerned about. It is a double approach where the exporting country is certifying to us under the international agreements that it has done its surveys and inspections and is certifying it free, and then we inspect it as it comes through. For 2024, we will be doing 100% inspections on all of these consignments as they come through, and we have the resources for that.

In addition, there has been a reference to our inspection protocol, and Mr. Dunne has just outlined that. Again, that is based on international standards. It is called ISPM No. 31. It is part of the International Plant Protection Convention standards. We follow that, and it is basically to have confidence in the sampling we take when looking at these 40 or 50 logs, depending on the size of the consignment, to ensure we believe that is a representative sample to show freedom from the pest. That is the approach we take, and again, we are working very closely with our Scottish colleagues and our colleagues in the North. We currently talk weekly, if not daily, on this matter.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I welcome the officials who have come in to speak to us. I am sure they have heard what the IFA's ask was before them. I accept that they say they feel they have sufficient safeguards in place, but given the concerns within the industry and the farming community, particularly in the context of ash dieback, would the witnesses think there is a need to respond to their request for a review of the protocols that are in place? What safeguards are there to robustly check what we have in place and if there are any deficiencies or shortcomings? It may be a case there are not. They have also asked for a short-term ban on importation while such a review is under way. It is probably sufficient if the review is put in place, and then we can, if needs be, look at a ban. However, based on the volume Mr. Dunne said is coming in, the number of loads and how often they have to be inspected, a review is important and I think it would be remiss of us as a committee if we did not ask for that review. It would be remiss of the Department not to do that review and safeguard the integrity of the sector. Will Mr. Delany respond to that?

Mr. Barry Delany

We are very happy, after this meeting, to share with the Deputy all the information we have to hand to outline exactly what we are currently doing. On the request to restrict movement from Scotland to Ireland, it is a difficult situation with regard to where we are in terms of the plant health law. One may have a country that has set up a pest-free area and they are prepared to stand over it on the basis of the surveys. They share all the information with us as well. When they are prepared to stand over that, the competent authority of the United Kingdom and the Scottish authorities are prepared to stand over that, and there has been no evidence of any findings within that pest-free area, it is very difficult for us to then unilaterally take such action under the plant health regulation, whether it is the EU rules or the international trade agreements. Obviously, we then could be viewed to be breaking, first, the TCA with the UK with regard to Brexit, and second, the WTO SPS rules.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Matt Shanahan

I am not so sure about that. The problem is that the people in the forestry sector I am talking about, those that were looking at forestry, are not looking at it now. Many private farms are not looking at it with all of the other issues that have been going on with forestry for the past while. The problem we now have with the nitrates derogation is that the cost of land has been pushed up. It will not work for forestry. That is why I believe we need a dedicated agency. I know that our witnesses cannot say that and I do not know if they can support it but I would say that we need it. To be fair, the forestry sector has performed poorly and, as I said earlier and when the agriculture witnesses were before the committee, this is not just about the forestry sector but is also supposed to be part of our climate action plan. We are not performing in that sector either, a big part of which is in afforestation. Our witnesses know the numbers. We were supposed to be doing 18,000 ha and it is down to 8,000 ha and we are probably doing 2,500 ha or 4,000 ha - I do not know what the figure is at present - but it is a long way short of the aspirational target. We are going to miss that by a country mile.

The only thing I would say to our witnesses is that what Senator Daly was saying is interesting and I would agree with him. Listening to the conversation, I imagine if I was in a boardroom today and was asking about the door plugs which fell out of the 737 aeroplane and what the issue was, the Boeing company said exactly that it had all of its people who were compliant all the way along, that it had the most robust engineers, had this and had that and all of the rest of it, and guess what? The doors fell off. When they went to look at more of their doors, there was a problem. The difficulty here is that there is a problem looming here, whether we want to accept it or not, and I do not believe it is fair to say, as others have said, that because Scotland is saying it is doing a good job, we take that at face value.

If there was a significant outbreak of bark beetle, say in the midlands of Ireland tomorrow in a spruce plantation, what level of energy would come from the Department to address that and to perhaps put a task force in, and to look at what was asked for already, which was to change the scoping of material being brought into the country?

To address the point made by Mr. Delany that it must be given the chance to eradicate it, we have looked at the UK and it has not eradicated it. It is rising up along the country into Scotland at present so it does not seem to be that easy to eradicate, which is a reason one does not want it brought in. I am not questioning our witnesses' bona fides or intent but it is not adequate. We will be left in the position at some point in the future and there is no doubt that we will have bark beetle in this country and we will be then asking this question as to why we did not implement X, Y, or Z.

I go along with what was said by Senator Daly which is that there must be an opportunity for Ireland to look at re-scoping timber until we have done a root and branch review of how we are checking for this. It is not fair to put this back on Scottish authorities by saying that they told us that it was all right. That is not the precautionary principle and is not a principle at all in my mind. We should be managing our own resources and assets. We are not doing that and a significant economic risk of this beetle coming into this country is huge and I am not getting it, to be fair, from our three witnesses here this evening that they are actually addressing that. I believe they are addressing the numbers with regard to certification, licensing and regulation but that does not mean we are solving the problem and the Department should look to a task force to ensure that it is doing it properly. As Deputy Flaherty said, that should be managed externally and not within the Department because we cannot afford this in the country, in the farming sector nor can we afford it from the point of view of climate action.

Mr. Barry Delany

I will come back briefly to the Deputy on the felling, and so on. To be clear, our capacity for that has increased in the past year or two. We are now doing nearly 9 million cu. m each year so, again, parties who wish to fell their timber have the opportunity to do so.

On the point of the afforestation and the pressures on land, yes, that is the issue and is why we managed to get through and approve the new programme which had dramatically increased rates of well over 50% in increased payments to farmers and an additional five years. The proof of that is very interesting when one looks at the applications that have come in so there are licences in the system. With the new applications which have come in to date; some 85% of those are farmer applications. That is very interesting and it shows that there is still some interest there. I know that there are issues and concerns around availability of land but it shows that there is a certain demand there. We will be trying to do our best to promote that and to present a positive face for forestry, as mentioned by Deputy Shanahan.

On the inspections, the point I are trying to make is that it is two-handed. We have our inspections in place of what comes through and what comes in. In addition to that, there is also an obligation on the exporting countries. It is not that I am trying to hand over all responsibility to them but they have a certain obligation in their international trade obligations to ensure that they comply. On the basis of our getting that, we also inspect the assignments coming in.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

With respect to Mr. Delany, we will face a far more significant economic hit if the beetle comes in from the UK than will the UK, having sent timber here with the beetle in it.

That is realistically the output of all of this. That is what we are talking about. It is not about putting the responsibility on other agencies. We need to make sure we have the belt and braces done on a procedure like this. We have discussed the inherent risks, where the forestry sector is, and that we have so much Sitka spruce. We would all prefer to have less of it but it is the commercial product, whereas the roundwood is not. We are therefore forced into that situation.

The economic hit of beetle coming into this country would be appalling from the point of view of the farming sector, the people who are invested, the climate action programme and Ireland Inc.'s strategic plan. That is what I am talking about. I think we need a task force and with all due respect, it should not be Department led. If I want to examine my driving, I do not go down the road and ask if I turned well, indicated, put on my lights or hit the brakes in time. I might get somebody else into the car to do that for me. How could I assess myself? I do not think the Department should be doing it either. It should heed the call already made by two members that it robustly engage with an external review of its procedures and practices in respect of this examination.

Mr. Barry Delany

We need commercial conifers in this country. It is really important for us. We need a mix. I want to be clear that we support that and the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, has launched her recent timber construction working group to ensure the wood now coming to fruition can be utilised in this country. That is important, so I want to make the point that we fully support the planting of commercial plantations for that aspect.

On oversight, representatives of the IFA are in the Gallery. The IFA is a tough taskmaster. The reality is that I have to comply with European legislation. The European Food and Veterinary Office, which is the European Commission auditor in this area, comes to check we are doing everything correctly. It does import control audits and checks our plant passport controls and fish controls. That is the robust process we are involved in. Ms Fay can add a little more to that in terms of oversight.

Ms Deirdre Fay

The phytosanitary controls on plant and plant products imported into Ireland are required under the EU official control regulation and the plant health regulation. Mr. Delany mentioned the Department's plant health and biosecurity strategy. These import controls are a crucial element of the strategy. In terms of the total number of consignments imported in 2023, there were almost 15,000, of which 847 were forestry consignments. For import controls, the central border control points, BCPs, are in Dublin Port, Dublin Airport and Rosslare. Of those consignments, more than 10,000 underwent physical inspection.

I return to Mr. Delany's point about the two-pronged approach. We are not only getting certification from the exporting country, but we are also doing significant checks here at the border control points. On the sampling, Mr. Delany mentioned that it is part of the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures, ISPM, No. 31, which is the international standard that provides for a statistical basis. It is a statistical basis for sampling and inspection of regulated articles. In any inspection it is not really feasible to inspect the entire consignment, so the phytosanitary inspection is performed mainly on representative subsamples obtained from the consignment. The ISPM details approved approaches for doing that.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

I accept all of that, but is not the whole point we are discussing that you cannot check all consignments? If somebody were externally reviewing that, apart from the Department and its partners meeting all of their obligations, the fact is that there is a significant amount of product coming in that may potentially be contaminated and may not be picked up. An external risk assessment might therefore say that we need to find a different way of approaching that. It might be quarantining timber, putting it under a steaming process or hitting it with X-rays - whatever would kill an aphid or a beetle. What I am saying is that somebody from outside might decide to come at this process completely differently and say that we cannot risk an infestation of this type in the country because it would be a national disaster for our agricultural sector and, therefore, we will take exceptional measures not called for within the Department's regulatory planning and testing regimes at the moment. That is what a task force might implement. That is what I suggest the Department needs to think about. I am not a member of this committee but I will be writing to the Chair with that suggestion. It happens in other industries, but not in the public sector. In other industries where there are safety issues, external private sector industries operate differently from the way the public sector seems to have to do it. I do not accept for a minute that the Department has covered the base because it has met its requirements under its EU partnerships and all of that. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about doing something exceptional to protect this industry in Ireland. We might do something that nobody else is doing because it is effective. What is happening at the moment will be effective until there is an outbreak. If that happens, we will find out all of the flaws in it after the fact. As I said, Boeing aircraft is one of the largest companies in the world. It had a cast-iron case for assessing and certifying its aircraft, and look what happened? Accidents happen and failure happens. We are trying to cut that out as much as possible.

Deputy Jackie Cahill resumed the Chair.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I welcome the officials from the Department. There is nothing like straight talk. Coming here today, they are on the back foot. I will explain what I mean by that. If we take, for instance, the way the Department dealt with ash dieback, when the independent review report was published in September 2023 it stated that ash dieback should be treated like a national emergency. It noted: "Speed and urgency is of the essence – to realise the value of the trees, restore trust and confidence and to reduce the risks associated with large numbers of dead and dying trees in the landscape." Almost four months later, we still waiting for implementation of the plan. This is not a rapid response.

I noticed earlier when the officials were giving their answers, the used terms such as "precautionary course", "immediate" and "very soon". Those words are coming from a Department whose response to ash dieback was slow and weak. There is also the fact that the reputation of the Department is in tatters. I do not mean to upset anybody, but my job is to come here to represent people and represent what is happening on the ground. At one time in Ireland, we were proud of the Department of forestry. That name changed and we moved on, and we were glad because farmers were encouraged to plant ground. People had confidence in the system and the Department. There were local foresters in different areas and a forestry network throughout the country that we were all proud of. We know that Ireland grows trees better than anywhere else. However, there is red tape, bureaucracy and Ministers with responsibility for forestry who do not listen and have no interest. We have senior officials in Departments who will not listen to public representatives like us or to people in the forestry sector or organisations such as the IFA. They are not listening. We have a Minister who will not sit down and meet with stakeholders and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to a table because they will not come of their own accord to meet people. Why?

Why is there such a disconnect between the people who are so important - the people on the ground who own land - and people in the Department who should be encouraging them to plant trees? They are doing absolutely nothing to instil confidence in the sector. The ash dieback experience and the way the Department dealt with it does not shroud its officials in glory. That is why people are so nervous today. It is why Deputy Flaherty asked the officials eight times to give a timeframe. He dragged an answer out of them for a finish when they said "very soon". The Deputy referred to the end of the month if that was necessary, and the officials agreed. He dragged it out of them. Eight times he asked the exact same question. I know they are not stupid or deaf but they made him ask the same question eight times.

I am very grateful that the IFA representatives are here and I am very thankful for the work Jason Fleming is doing on behalf of the forestry sector in Ireland but the Department is giving no hearing whatsoever and has actually been dismissive, in a polite way, of what the IFA has said. The IFA seeks a temporary suspension and the creation of a special task force.

Those present have invited us to inspect the timber coming in and to show us how the Department conducts its inspection. I am perfectly able to understand the procedure being used by the Department as I was told about it. I am not one bit impressed by the procedure and I am not one bit confident about it. Do I think the inspections, checks and balances will keep the bark beetle out? I do not. My experience of the Department gives me no confidence whatsoever in what it is doing. I would like the Department to somehow or other listen today.

I am a great believer in not looking backwards but looking forward. Even if the Department has lost the confidence and trust of farmers and the people in the whole forestry sector, it would be helpful, even at this late stage, if it started to listen. I say all that because the Department seems to be sleepwalking to the edge of a cliff and adopted a mindset of "sure if the beetle wants to come in then it will come in but we did our best and tried anyway." The Department has not listened. I would like a meaningful and clear response. I do not want a Department-type of a response but a human response to the two things I have mentioned.

What about a temporary suspension and establishment of a task force to ensure that we are not decimated altogether? Is there a total disregard for forestry in the Department? I ask that because of the figures. Let us consider the figures for the number of people in Ireland who are planting today versus five, ten, 15 or 20 years ago. I own a sizeable forestry, so I can talk about these matters. I gave many years to forestry and I still work in forestry, although one would not want to rely on such work now because it is getting fairly scarce. There was a time when we literally worked full time at nothing else but sodding, making roads and draining, and then when a forestry was cleared going back in and sodding it again. None of that work goes on now and the amount of planting is minuscule. I swear to God but if I were a senior person, or any person, working on forestry issues in the Department, I would be saying, "God, lads, what are we doing? Ye have lost it completely and the ship has sailed."

An Cathaoirleach

I think the Deputy has asked two questions. I ask Mr. Delany to address the questions on a new task force and ash dieback.

Mr. Barry Delany

I thank Deputy Healy-Rae. We are always available to talk. I will meet anybody anywhere in any county. Wherever it might be we are always open to discuss these matters.

As we explained again to Deputy Shanahan, and I know Deputy Healy-Rae talked about work for the sector, there will be significant volumes of felling in the coming years. All of the planting in 1990 and later will reach maturity between 2030 and 2035. We are issuing licences for 9 million cubic metres a year to facilitate that for private landowners and Coillte, in an equal amount.

We have launched a new €1.3 billion programme. We have brought in additional premia and payments to encourage farmers to join the programme. There is a lot of competition for land due to other issues but we want farmers to see the programme as being complementary to their overall farm approach. Planting trees on farms is a sustainable thing to do, especially when one considers the current return in income for cattle farmers where 133% of their income comes from single farm payments and basic income support for sustainability, BISS, payments, and sheep to a lesser extent. Our new programme of planting forestry, whichever type is preferred, will complement farming.

Interestingly, 85% of the applications for afforestation that we have received so far have come from farmers and the remainder are from non-farmers with the average size of land being 8 ha. That percentage is significant and shows there is interest. We definitely have a lot more work to do and that is why I explained that we issued just over €1 million worth of approvals recently to registered foresters and other interested parties to promote forestry locally and regionally, which we very much support that. We also work closely with Teagasc on workshops around the country so farmers can speak to knowledgeable people about the possibilities that are on their land.

On the new programme, as part of the farmers' charter and as licensing issues point out, our turnaround times are dramatically decreasing. The waiting time is much less, especially for felling licences. For afforestation, things are a bit more difficult given the environmental constraints under which we must we work in terms of approval by the European Commission. We are committing to six and nine months - six months for files that are screened out and nine months for files that are screened in. Therefore, there is time for a reply and applicants have a timeline for when a licence will be issued. That is very much our target for the coming year for all of the applications on hand.

As I have committed to here, we will have a forest health stakeholder grouping to discuss exactly what has emerged from our engagement with the Scottish authorities. We will discuss what has emerged with all of the relevant stakeholders and we will discuss their concerns.

On ash dieback, as members will know, the situation has been very challenging. We have launched our new programme and issued just shy of 1,000 ha of approvals, which shows there is uptake. The Minister has advised that while we go through this process of trying to launch our action plan people would apply, clear their forests and plant. Applicants will not be prejudiced in any way in terms of anything that comes out of our ongoing engagement. As members will know, it is caught up in both state aid rules in terms of compensating people when they have already been paid to do certain things, and the fact that we pay €2,000 to clear the site plus people get the reconstitution payments to replant and establish that crop again.

On income forgone, it is very difficult to do that under EU state aid rules but that is something which is in the recommendations. We are committed to exploring every option, which is what we are doing and has probably led to a little delay in terms of those financial aspects and the regulatory rules. We are committed to delivering it as soon as possible because we understand the concerns. People just want to draw a line under this and get on with things, and we are committed to doing that as speedily as possible.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I thank our guests for attending this evening and for their opening statement.

Mr. Delany referred to a strategy in his opening statement and stated that the first key strategic principle is risk anticipation. How does the Department view the risk posed by the bark beetle?

We will not be shy in coming forward now. We have put out more than €1 million in terms of promotion projects to the sector and we will see those coming through regionally and locally. There is also our own campaign - it pays to plant trees. We also will become more targeted around pointing to planting forest type 12, which is the mixed commercial afforestation of broad leaves and so on. There is also huge interest in the agri-forestry aspect. This makes sense for sheep farmers and maybe even to poultry people to look at as well. One still gets to use the land in between which they can use for grazing. This appears to work very well for animal behaviour and husbandry.

I am trying to explain that there is positivity but, of course, there are constraints in terms of land and the challenge in the demands for land. However, the Deputy will see us positively promoting that as best we can.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

Can I make one final comment?

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Shanahan might be very brief.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

Because Mr. Delany is not in favour of an agency, and he does not seem to be in favour of an external review, to give confidence to the sector, the Department might publish some type of budget to underwrite future losses if we do get an infestation of beetle. At least the farmers who are looking at planting spruce at the moment might look down the road and see that the Government will come to their rescue if it is the case that we fail in what we are trying to achieve.

Mr. Barry Delany

We are serious about dealing with these issues. The Minister of State just today finished seeking people to join her forest strategy consultative committee, which is the replacement of the old forest policy group. A broad range of members and stakeholders across the forestry sector are part of that. Within that, the Minister of State has also committed to set up the ash dieback task force. That will be a subgroup of that grouping and, again, that will be set up very shortly.

In terms of the issue the Deputy raised, the programme we just had approved from the Commission has the facility for reconstitution in exactly that event, should there be a finding. To clarify, we did not really get into it here, but in terms of our own surveillance, there is surveillance at the point of entry but there is also ongoing surveillance. There are 400 points around the country surveying for more than 43 pests. Again, that is critical to underpin the plant health status of the forestry estate. It is really important. It is about reaching out through the forest health stakeholder grouping I discussed earlier to raise that awareness among people to know what they are looking for in their own forests so that we can know straight away about any issues that might occur. People are aware of how they can prevent issues happening in their own forests. That is really important. They are the two groupings.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the officials for coming in this evening. We listened to representatives from the IFA earlier. To say there is anxiety over this issue would be an understatement. The financial implications of it are huge. Ash dieback stole in behind our backs. There is a clear forewarning now that this is a threat to our forestry sector. There will be no forgiveness if this bark beetle gets a presence in our plantation. Whatever biosecurity measures have to be taken to make sure it is kept out must be take. Mr. Delany is going to come back to the committee before the end of the month, which I appreciate. We will also correspond with the Minister with a summary of today outlining our concerns and what we feel needs to be done.

I am not going to go back over ash dieback. I feel for the farmers with ash dieback. In my time, and I have been involved in representing farmers for a long time, I have never before seen a disease that was outside a farmer's control where compensation was not paid. I cannot comprehend it. This idea that it is against state rules and so forth does not cut the mustard with me. There has to be some mechanism to compensate those forestry owners for 20 to 25 years of growth loss, which is their retirement pot gone into rubble. We have to address this in the interests in fairness and morality. It is wrong that this is something completely outside of their control and they are carrying all the financial loss for it.

I will ask one question, and maybe it is an unfair one. If Mr. Delany thinks it is, I accept if he will not answer it. Mr. Delany is director of forestry. What target does he have for afforestation in 2024, excluding the 1 ha plots, which is not commercial timber?

Mr. Barry Delany

We have a target of 8,000 ha set out there. We have the-----

An Cathaoirleach

What does Mr. Delany think he is realistically going to need?

Mr. Barry Delany

From our point of view, it is to show that we have the capacity to do that in terms of all the efficiencies we have tried to bring into the process, notwithstanding the additional environmental constraints we have to take into account in terms of that permanent land use change. Our ecology resources, engineer resources and inspector resources have all dramatically increased. Therefore, we believe we have the capacity to do 8,000 ha. It will be challenging in this year to get to that. I will just state that as of today, we have 1,599 ha ready and available to plant. We hope the farmers who have those valid licenses will now proceed and plant those. We have about the same number again who have applied in the system.

As I said, members will see us promoting strongly through the year in terms of trying to encourage farmers to apply. That will hopefully get those files through for planting in the autumn. It will be challenging to meet that target, but we will do everything we can to promote, facilitate and help people to apply to get to that target.

An Cathaoirleach

I wish the Department the very best of luck with it. As has been said this evening, however, confidence is at such a low ebb. We have to start rebuilding confidence. Ash dieback is to me one of the cornerstones of rebuilding that confidence. To show that there is a mechanism for conversation for farmers would be one of the cornerstones. Biosecurity, again, to get confidence that we are doing everything possible to keep this bark beetle out, is going to be key as well. Anyone who is planting now is doing something for the next 25 to 30 years. We have to be sure we can keep this pest under control.

I move the adjournment and thank the witnesses. The next public meeting of the committee will be at 5.30 p.m. on 24 January when the members will examine the deepening crisis of the inshore fishing industry in Ireland and give consideration to COM (2023) 495, COM (2023) 578 and COM (2023) 587.

The joint committee adjourned at 8.56 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 24 January 2024.

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate - Wednesday, 17 Jan 2024

Threat of Bark Beetles to Plantations: Discussion

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Jason Fleming

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Francie Gorman

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Francie Gorman

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Francie Gorman

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Francie Gorman

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Jason Fleming

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Jason Fleming

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Francie Gorman

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Francie Gorman

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Francie Gorman

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Jason Fleming

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Damian McDonald

Mr. Francie Gorman

Mr. Damian McDonald

Mr. Barry Delany

Mr. Barry Delany

Mr. Seamus Dunne

Mr. Seamus Dunne

Mr. Seamus Dunne

Mr. Seamus Dunne

Mr. Barry Delany

Mr. Barry Delany

Mr. Barry Delany

Mr. Barry Delany

Mr. Barry Delany

Mr. Barry Delany

Mr. Barry Delany

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 17 Jan 2024