The first item on the agenda is the scrutiny of EU legislation. At the meeting of 11 December it was decided that EU document COM 2002/404, a proposal for a regulation concerning the monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community, should be given further scrutiny by the joint committee. We will hear a presentation by Mr. Michael Prendergast of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Some members have questions, and Deputy Eamon Ryan might open the question as this was a matter he raised. I hope to conclude the meeting by 4 p.m. I welcome the officials from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources - Mr. Michael Prendergast, Mr. Noel O'Connor, Mr. Gerry Cody and Mr. Dermot McAree - who are here to assist members scrutinise this legislative proposal. I call on Mr. Prendergast to make a presentation to the committee.
Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources: Presentation.
Mr. Michael Prendergast
I have provided a handout which sets out the current position, the background to the proposed regulation and the likely timeframe for its adoption. I propose to take members through it. The regulation is being considered by the Environment Council and has been proposed by the Directorate General on the environment. We are working closely on it with our colleagues in the OELG. That is the route it will travel through the Community - through the environment working group, COREPER and the Environment Council.
At the Environment Council meeting of 9 December 2002 the Council took note of a progress report on the latest work concerning the proposal on the monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community, what is commonly called a forest focused proposal. The Danish Presidency welcomed the substantial progress which had been made on this dossier and called upon the Permanent Representatives Committee to continue its efforts towards a final agreement. The Greek Presidency which has taken up the reins since 1 January will consult Parliament with a view to reaching a first reading agreement in the near future. It is important that there is early adoption because there is currently a legal vacuum in that the 2002 regulations lapsed on 31 December.
The Environment Council of the European Parliament is due to meet on 28 January 2003 to debate the issue. I expect that it will be considered in plenary session by the Parliament in February 2003. The working party on the environment has held seven meetings on the proposal and significant progress has been made to date.
The objective of the proposal is the establishment of a new Community scheme on the monitoring of forests and environmental interactions to protect the Community's forests. The scheme will be built on the achievements of the two previous regulations for monitoring the impacts of atmospheric pollution and fires on forest ecosystems. The proposal will provide a multi-annual framework covering initially a six year period from 2003 to 2008. It aims at adapting the scope of the regulations mentioned to provide a flexible monitoring scheme to assess forest ecosystem conditions in a broader context than before, to include pollution, climate change, biodiversity, natural resources, soils and forest fires. It also simplifies existing activities by regrouping elements of both regulations under a single framework regulation covering the protection and monitoring of forests.
A Community scheme to protect forests against atmospheric pollution was established by Council Regulation No. 3528/86 in order to provide increased protection for forests in the Community and thereby contribute to safeguarding the productive potential of agriculture. The regulation expired on 31 December 2002 having been prolonged for a year longer than was initially intended. The focus of the scheme was the establishment of a long-term forest monitoring system. It was implemented in close co-operation with the international co-operative programme on the evaluation and monitoring of air pollution effects on forests, ICP forests, under the UNECE convention on long range transboundary air pollution, to which the European Community is a signatory party. The regulation provided for 50% Community co-financing of measures carried out by member states in the context of national programmes.
Council Regulation No. 2158/92 set up an action framework for the prevention of forest fires. Various measures were co-financed under this regulation such as the creation or improvement of prevention systems and, in particular, the establishment of protection infrastructure - forest paths, tracks, hydrants, firebreaks, etc. - as well as the creation or improvement of systems to monitor forests, identify the causes of forest fires and determine the means of combating them. The forest fire information system is one of the elements of this regulation which will be covered by the proposed framework regulation. The 1992 regulation expired on 31 December 2002 having been prolonged for a year. The forest fire element of the 1992 regulation is of particular concern to Mediterranean countries.
The regulation before the joint committee also deals with the protection of forests against atmospheric pollution. In co-operation with ICP forests, Community action has been developed during the years in line with objectives formulated in the ministerial conferences on the protection of European forests at Strasbourg, Helsinki and Lisbon and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Community action has been implemented by Commission Regulations Nos. 526/87, 1696/87, 1091/94 and 2278/99 and fulfilled the objectives set out by the Council.
The Commission is also concerned about protecting forests against fire and in 1994 adopted Regulation No. 804/94 on implementing the Community forest fire information system. This regulation introduced systematic collection of a set of data on each fire, for all areas at risk of fire in the member states participating in the system. The forest fire information system covers six member states which have areas at risk of fire: Germany, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Greece. There is a heavy emphasis on Mediterranean countries. The system is an operational tool for monitoring and assessing the measures taken by the member states and the Commission for fire prevention.
The enhanced monitoring regulation contains references to environmental policies and integrating new environmental issues. It is related to the overall package of environmental action areas and will follow a scientific approach. The various monitoring elements proposed are related to the key priorities of the sixth environmental action programme and the sustainable development strategy: pollution, climate change, biodiversity, natural resources and soils. The new regulation will go further than previous regulations with regard to such matters.
If we are to identify the nature of risks and uncertainties to provide a basis for solutions and further policy decisions, more information needs to be made available in relation to environmental legislation and policies at EU level such as the clean air for Europe programme, the 2000/60/EC water framework directive, the 79/409/EEC directive on the conservation of wild birds, the 92/43/EEC directive on the conservation of natural habitats and wild flora and fauna and the recent EU thematic strategy for soil protection. A Community scheme on monitoring forests and environmental interactions will contribute to meeting these needs. The proposed monitoring activity could assist substantially the monitoring requirements deriving from the European climate change programme, the EU biodiversity strategy and corresponding biodiversity action plans, the soil strategy and the forthcoming scheduled work on the soil monitoring directive and could contribute to GMES activities.
The member states of the European Union are committed to promoting sustainable development in the European Union's policies and actions. The European Union is committed to the sustainable management and protection of forests in relevant international and pan-European processes related to forests such as the forest principles agreed at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro conference and subsequent work, the ongoing ministerial conference on the protection of European forests and the resolutions adopted so far in that context and the UNECE convention on long range transboundary air pollution and the protocols under it.
The proposal before the joint committee has not been based on an ex-ante evaluation as it builds on the monitoring activity of Council Regulations Nos. 3528/86 and 2158/92. The Commission has recently prepared a report on the application of monitoring activity between 1987 and 2001 which will be sent to the European Parliament and the Council. The proposal takes into consideration the results of an independent review of monitoring activity. Centralised co-ordination by a scientific co-ordination body, continuous monitoring of activities carried out by the scheme and a new organisational structure will help to further improve the scheme's efficiency. The requirement in the national programmes of the member states to elaborate ex-ante, mid-term and ex-post evaluations will enhance the transparency of the scheme's activities and its cost efficiency. The Commission will similarly carry out a mid-term review of the scheme followed by an evaluation report at the end of the scheme's execution period.
According to the European Court's decision on 25 February 1999 concerning the legal basis for Council Regulations Nos. 3528/86 and 2158/92 and with respect to the objectives of future EU action, Article 175 of the treaty is the only legal basis. The Community's policy on the environment shall strive, under Article 174, to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment and encourage prudent and rational use of natural resources taking into account the diversity of situations in different regions of the Community. The framework regulation will be implemented by Commission regulations which will prescribe general aspects of the monitoring activities, procedures to be followed for reporting and the formulation of national programmes. The Commission regulations will also deal with the establishment of manuals that describe the monitoring methods.
The main objective of the proposed action is to provide a framework for a Community scheme to contribute towards the protection of forest ecosystems in the Community by monitoring the condition of the ecosystems. The objective cannot be sufficiently achieved if member states act separately. It can be better achieved by a Community action to ensure harmonised data collection and the provision of relevant policy information at Community level which will help the evaluation of ongoing Community measures to promote the conservation and sustainable management of forest ecosystems.
I wish to highlight some aspects that have been taken into account in the framing of the new regulation. Almost 44% of the European Union's land area is covered with forests and other wooded areas. Forest ecosystems fulfil various functions with economic, social and ecological significance and provide a habitat for various species of plants and animals. Forest ecosystems are exposed to serious threats from air pollution, fires, climatic change and attacks from parasites and diseases. Most of these threats can have cross-border effects and seriously upset or destroy forest ecosystems. The protection of forest ecosystems is, therefore, a major concern.
The member states of the European Union are committed to the protection of forests and the sustainable management of forests in all relevant pan-European and international processes related to forests. The forest strategy and the sixth environmental action programme address issues of concern and identify monitoring needs. Monitoring is necessary to trace forest ecosystem conditions, changes in such conditions, the reaction of ecosystems to environmental stress and the effects of policies. Changes in the condition of ecosystems, as well as the reasons for the changes, may be recognised at an early stage, thereby allowing the adoption of timely and appropriate measures in due course. A flexible long-term monitoring programme is needed to achieve these objectives.
The future EU scheme shall be based on four pillars, the first of which is the establishment of a monitoring programme on air pollution effects on forests. The second is forest fire monitoring and the third, continuous evaluation of the efficiency of monitoring activities in the assessment of forest eco-system conditions and the further development of monitoring activity. The fourth pillar is the establishment of new monitoring activities on forest bio-diversity soils, climate change and carbon sequestration after the development of appropriate monitoring methods and provided that the necessary additional financial resources will be made available by the budgetary authority.
The monitoring of the effect of air pollution on forests will be carried out through two complementary networks. One is a systematic network of observation points which cover the whole community and the other is a network of intensive monitoring plots. The systematic network provides representative information on forest conditions and changes while intensive monitoring in selected plots allows for in-depth monitoring activities in order to observe eco-system processes. Fires have a serious effect on forests in many parts of the European Community. Forest fire monitoring will be established with a view to monitoring the extent and causes of forest fires. It will allow assessment of the impact of fires on forest eco-system conditions and will provide an operational tool for monitoring and assessing the measures taken by the member states and the Commission. The provisions of the programme's activities will support and complement activities related to forest fires undertaken under the provisions of civil protection, Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1257/99 on support for rural development and the European forest information and communication system, EFICS.
The Commission shall conduct studies, experiments and demonstration projects to develop the scheme and to further improve its efficiency. In order to make full use of the results derived from these actions, member states will be asked to conduct studies, experiments and demonstration projects in the new monitoring areas. The determination of appropriate parameters, the elaboration of methods for data collection and a test phase to check the feasibility and practicality of the methods are prerequisites for the gradual incorporation of new monitoring elements.
The monitoring activities to be carried out by member states including, in particular, the collection of data and studies, experiments and demonstration projects shall be implemented under multi-annual national programmes covering a three-year period. To achieve these objectives, the Commission shall establish a scientific co-ordination body, which may be under the aegis of the joint research centre. It shall, in particular, organise the collection and assessment of data and develop a community-wide data platform. The Commission may need additional assistance from contracted decentralised thematic centres and may, in addition, consult and contract experts and research institutes to carry out specific works. The European Environmental Agency shall assist the Commission in its reporting activity. In this context, co-operation with pan-European and international bodies, in particular ICP Forests, in the common field of monitoring air pollution, is needed to ensure a coherent approach to monitoring.
The scheme shall run for six years, from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2008. We are in a legal vacuum at the moment in that the two former regulations lapse on 31 December. The proposed framework regulation will provide co-financing up to 50% of the eligible costs for monitoring activity and database platforms as well as for studies, experiments and demonstration projects to be carried out by member states in the context of their national programmes. The Commission will finance its own activities, such as co-ordination and evaluation work, as well as studies, projects and experiments. A contribution shall be made to the European Environmental Agency and a further contribution may be provided to ICP Forests to establish a scientific interface with the scientific co-ordination body of the EU. That would allow ICP Forests to ensure the exchange of knowledge, information and data and permit a coherent approach in common fields of forest monitoring.
To conduct monitoring of air pollution effects on forests and on forest fires, to develop new monitoring activities and to improve the scheme, an allocation of €52 million shall be provided for the period 2003-2006. For the years 2007 and 2008, the annual amount of €13 million may be increased to fund new activities provided the increase is approved by the budgetary authority.
Member states shall each designate one national focal centre to ensure efficient and clear communication structures. The data gathered under the scheme shall be submitted by the centres to the Commission and made available to the public, especially to experts and research institutes. A multi-annual approach with a reporting period of three years is foreseen for the reporting of the results gained from the monitoring of forest eco-systems conditions. However, in the case of forest fires reporting will be annual. The Commission will conduct a review of the schemes after three years and report on their implementation. The standing forestry committee, which is consultative, shall assist the Commission in co-ordinating, monitoring and developing the scheme for harmonised and comprehensive monitoring of forest eco-system conditions and related environmental impacts. It will be consulted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999, which lays down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.
The Commission shall conduct a review of the scheme after its first three-year period and shall report during its fourth year on this basis on the implementation of the scheme. Before the running period referred to in the regulation expires in 2008, the Commission will report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of the regulation. The scheme shall be open to the candidate countries.
Noel Foley is our environmental auditor, Noel O'Connor works in the environmental side in administration, Mr. McAree is the chief forestry inspector, Gerry Cody works on environmental and policy matters and I work in administration.
Due to the nature of the process in which we are engaging today and as this is the first time the committee has considered proposed EU legislation, I propose that any question a member poses be replied to before I call on the next member. I call on Deputy Eamon Ryan who raised this matter last month.
I thank the representatives of the Department for their presentation. I do not know if any other committee has examined EU legislation, but this is a learning exercise. If we received briefing material in advance, we could read it and go straight to questions, which would be a better use of our time. We do not necessarily have to go through a particular document. Politicians have a terrible name for reading speeches which makes this seem like the pot calling the kettle black, however, we could have read this in advance and proceeded to questions straight away.
This may not be the most important legislation coming through the EU, but it is something in which I have a particular interest. Many people have environmental questions regarding forestry and this is an opportunity to ask them. The particular reason I am interested is not so much to do with the regulations regarding forest fires and atmospheric pollution, but rather involves the issue of bio-diversity and the monitoring of forestry on a broader environmental basis. I welcome the directive and its broad provisions very much, but I have a number of questions about how we apply them. Who will do the monitoring in this State? I understand that at present Coillte, in conjunction with the department of forestry in UCD, is tasked with monitoring, which is not necessarily the best structure. My doubts arise from a parliamentary question I asked about Coillte's involvement in decisions about felling licences. The Department replied that Coillte was not party to the consideration of environmental sensitivity of sites and, in fact, all decisions relating to the inclusion of areas in the felling licence and the treatment of environmental considerations are the sole responsibility of the forestry service. Coillte is only involved in its role as a landowner.
Is it right to ask a commercially orientated body to be the monitoring agency or are we planning to make a change? If so, what is the Department doing in that regard? The legislation gave me a fright when I realised the date of introduction was 1 January 2003. I thought we were late, but there is still time to negotiate because we are operating in a vacuum.
There are a number of ways we should steer the regulation of this draft directive on issues that relate to the Irish environment and forestry. Climate change and sequestration of CO2 will become important topics as the Kyoto Protocol looms. I fear the monitoring of CO2 emissions will only take into account the uptake that any new forestry development would involve, not the large CO2 releases that occur in the drainage process when preparing for new forestry. Scientific monitoring regulations should cover the release of CO2 as well as the uptake to get an accurate figure. This is not being done. Such regulations should be included. Peat upland is particularly sensitive to forestry drainage. This is relevant to Ireland, although not necessarily so for other European countries.
I welcome the emphasis on the monitoring of soil in forestry. Many hold the view that the high density of coniferous forest plantation has had an effect on the pH balance of the soil. Pine needles on the ground and in rivers have affected the pH balance of rivers and, thus, fish life. This might be particular to Ireland given the high percentage of certain exotic coniferous plantations.
The draft directive refers in broad terms to the aspirations of the six environmental action programmes. The specifics should be included when we come to the details. I welcome the analysis and monitoring of biodiversity. There has been a great deal of anecdotal discussion of the biodiversity effects of our forestry policy. We should provide accurate, scientific information in order that we are dealing with facts, not anecdotal evidence.
From where will the budget for increased monitoring come? The European Union may make 50% available, but if we are to broaden monitoring, there must be a commitment on the part of the State. Has this been identified in current budgets?
My key questions are who will be responsible for monitoring and, when it comes to sequestration, how will we measure it? With the possibility of fines for CO2 emissions, this will become an important issue. How will we monitor the effects on the pH balance of soil and water as a result of forestry? How will biodiversity be managed and from where will the budget come?
Mr. Prendergast
The regulation requires a designated national authority which will be the forest service. It will be responsible. Monitoring is currently carried out by Coillte and the forestry department of UCD. State forestry was established in 1986. When Coillte was established in 1989, the research branch was given to it. The plots and the expertise were available. Ownership patterns have since changed in State forestry. Now 90% of planting is done by farmers. Under this regulation, the forest service will be responsible for monitoring.
COFORD is undertaking a study of CO2 emissions from forestry activity. The policy years ago was to have coniferous plantations, but the situation is different now. We plant different species and have a commitment to plant broad leaf trees to a level of 30% by 2006. Currently, ten of the aspects of biodiversity of the 12 identified as additional are subject to monitoring. The Commission's intention is that there will be no extension of existing plots up to 2008 and that monitoring will continue. Enhanced monitoring, even for carbon dioxide sequestration and biodiversity, will continue on the basis of the existing plot network in member states. A total of 50% of the budget will be provided by the European Union and the other 50% by the forest service.
Mr. Dermot McAree
Carbon dioxide sequestration relates to the ability of forests to take and hold on to CO2. Having signed the Kyoto treaty Ireland is committed to giving an annual carbon dioxide account which is worked out on a net basis using a complex mathematical formula. Any carbon dioxide released through ploughing would be regarded as negative but it is balanced by the intake of the tree and wrapped up in timber. The net value is regarded as positive in terms of forestry.
There is a meeting tomorrow in Brussels at which we will have to present our data on the fixation potential of our forests, an important component of our climate change strategy. Forests are making a positive contribution to carbon dioxide sequestration, but the point in relation to peat land is correct. If peat land is disturbed or ploughed, there is enhanced decomposition by microbes and a net release of CO2 but forestry has moved away from peat land. The net benefit of forestry, therefore, is positive. If there is air pollution in the atmosphere, a tree will act as a sponge. The wind comes laden with pollution and the tree will act as a barrier and hold on to the pollution. It is not necessarily the trees causing acidification but a combination of air pollution and atmospheric elements. We are conscious of this. Certain soils do not have the buffering capacity to absorb such acid and we will not plant on such land.
We have a strict code of best forest practice, strict environmental guidelines and a national forest standard. We will leave a copy of the guidelines to show the joint committee that we are actively pursuing sustainable forest management. We have signed up to many international accords with various criteria, one of which is the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. That is our mantra - to practice sustainable forest management and ensure all timber produced in Ireland is derived from sustainable and managed forests.
I agree with Deputy Ryan. This is an historic moment in that we have an opportunity to discuss European legislation in committees. I commend the Chairman for taking the initiative that has brought us here today. The first point I wish to raise relates to Commission document 404. Our briefing informs us about elements of Ireland's input into that document. I commend the forestry service and the Department for the tremendous historic work they have done over the years in restoring our great forests that were decimated in past centuries. How was that input made into legislation? When we produce a Bill here, Opposition parties like mine offer amendments and so on. In arriving at this complex legislation, what kind of input did Ireland have exactly? Did we actually fight for some of the issues my colleague has raised? Did we fight to include elements in this large piece of legislation that would benefit us in particular?
It strikes me that some of this legislation would perhaps apply to warmer climates, places like Spain or Greece, and to European partners that would have different levels of pollution. I wonder what the process is and how our national institutions - in this case the forestry service and our Department - can best exercise influence.
I also intended to ask about the financing but I think we have dealt with that. What is the situation at the moment in terms of current dangers from pollution in our own forests? I know many of us working on local authorities and in these Houses would be aware of efforts to set up a monitoring system for nitrogen dioxide, for example, emitted from cars and other vehicles. What is the current situation and how are we placed in comparison, say, to the forests of Scandinavia? Finally, are there any proposals yet as to where, among our many forested areas, the national focal centre is to be based? It is an interesting and historic day and I thank the delegation.
Mr. Prendergast
I thank the Deputy. I will address the issue of Ireland's role in formulating this proposal. It is clear that the major focus of the Mediterranean countries was on forest fires, and that was where the battle has been fought. We and a number of the northern states have been to the forefront in promoting the incorporation of the additional elements, be they biodiversity or whatever. The Deputy's point is a relevant one because the budget is only €13 million per annum and the feeling would be that the amount of money left after the existing atmospheric pollution monitoring and fire prevention measures will be very little. We are hoping that the budget will change in years to come. We have been to the fore in pushing for the broadening of the regulation. On the forestry focal centre, we are essentially talking about an administrative block in Ireland. The forestry service would be the agency charged with responsibility for having the monitoring carried out, getting the feedback, feeding it back into Europe, then getting the annual report from Europe on forest conditions in Ireland and responding and taking corrective action as necessary. I think Dermot McAree wants to respond to the Deputy's point about forest health.
Mr. McAree
Historically, much of the forest monitoring started with the acid rain controversy some 15 to 17 years ago, when the forests of Europe were being killed off by air pollution. The European-wide monitoring network was then set up. The good news from Ireland's point of view is that monitoring has shown us to have the healthiest forests in Europe in terms of production and lack of insect diseases, the parasites to which my colleague referred.
We had the honour of hosting an international conference in Ennis in 2001, and we tried to make the discussion more positive. Rather than emphasising forest decline, decay, disease, death and all this negative stuff, Ireland suggested that we should emphasise the health and vitality of forests and that we should do everything possible to maintain the health and vitality of European forests. That is why change has come about to monitor biodiversity which was not included in the first monitoring process.
From a European perspective, if forests are in decline or subject to sulphur dioxide or other forms of air pollution, they are predisposed to infestation by insects. It is just like humans; if we are not healthy we get the flu. The more vulnerable the forests are due to air pollution the more susceptible they are to insects or diseases from another continent. The most important aspect of this monitoring system is that it provides an early warning system to foresters. They can then set up perfume traps that will attract some of these insects. We get an idea from early on if these bugs are about and can do something about it.
Dutch elm disease is an example of what damage can be done. The elm is gone and we want to make sure from a European perspective that our forests are monitored and that action is taken if anything unusual turns up. We have managed in our own way in Ireland to hopefully change the emphasis from death, disease, decay, defoliation and decline to health and the positive contribution forests can make.
It is great to have so many senior officials here from the forestry sector. What was the projected area to be forested by the end of 2002 and how much area is actually forested? The document produced when former Deputy Ivan Yates was Minister included various projections up to 2010. The term "forest decline" was used then in the context of sulphur dioxide, or acid rain. The stage we are reaching in terms of forest decline was reflected in the newspapers this morning, in which concern was expressed about the harvesting cost and whether it is economical to establish a small unit of forestry. It was noted that we do not have large-scale forestry developments happening. We know what is happening at EU level with regard to the premiums and about the type of difficulties that exist with Coillte.
I would not expect the officials to comment on this but we know what has happened in the recent budget and Estimates, which is going to impact upon the nurseries and so on. Are we not significantly behind our projections at this stage? Is this going to have implications in the future for people who have come into this country because of our strong forest base and its capacity to provide raw materials, and could this impact upon jobs? Various projections were made but I do not think they have been met.
Mr. Prendergast
There is a learning curve for us also. I do not think this matter is related but we are happy to give the Deputy an answer anyway. The 1996 strategy, Growing for the Future, set targets and envisaged annual planting rates of up to 25,000 hectares. This has decreased and the target for 2003 is 20,000 hectares per annum. Over the last number of years we have reached roughly 15,000 hectares so we have been below the target. It is worth remembering, however, that 15,000 hectares is in itself a significant land use change.
The Deputy referred to Coillte and the court case, which is ongoing, but the situation has changed dramatically. Some 90% of planting is now done by farmers. With the recent proposed changes in agriculture and so on, we find that more and more farmers are becoming interested in planting. Initiatives were launched last year to encourage this. There has been a slow upturn in REPS, for example. The early retirement scheme is compatible with the objectives in forestry. Why should people not have part of their lands under forestry? We believe the signs are good for forestry, going forward, if one leaves aside the budgetary situation for 2003. More farmers are prepared to consider forestry as a viable land use option.
A member referred to grants and premia. It must not be forgotten that two years ago we secured a premium increase of 30%, which was significant, and a commitment from the Commission that there would be a review in three years, which will be next year. A 30% increase at that time was far in excess of inflation so it was significant. The fact that 90% of planting is now done by farmers is positive proof that farmers consider forestry a viable land use alternative.
There is the other issue, the fact that Growing for the Future is the strategy document or the bible by which we work. The single reference to forestry in the programme for Government mentions increasing planting to 20,000 hectares. We had hoped, and there were positive signs, that the planting programme would be in excess of 15,000 hectares, but that was before the negotiations took place on the budgetary situation and things have changed slightly. Nevertheless, we hope it is a temporary blip.
There is a long-term issue in that many people would have made investments - some of them significant - in recent years predicated on a critical mass of a certain amount. We are not reaching the lofty targets set in 1996, but we are a good way towards achieving them. There is a realism within the sector because we have discussions on a regular basis. The investments made by sawmills in recent years, for example, were based on the fact that we were only planting 15,000 hectares per annum.
Mr. Prendergast is not concerned, therefore, about the situation in four or five years if the projections are back to the original forecast. There can be problems on the manufacturing side. There are some major players in the business in this country who are big users of forestry products. My concern is long-term jobs, particularly those in the deciduous sector.
Mr. Prendergast
That is important. The timber industry development group was established by the Tánaiste two years ago and is currently completing a report on the industry. The report looks at this area and how it is going forward in the medium and long-term. It is industry focused and deals with the issues the Senator mentioned. The report is awaiting publication.
Obviously it will be made available to this committee.
I welcome the delegation. I am glad we are discussing something related to EU legislation and directives, which generally passed us by in the past. Unfortunately, the first matter we have been called to discuss is one of which I have little knowledge so I have listened with interest to the presentation and the various questions.
Perhaps Mr. Prendergast would elaborate on how monitoring of forests is conducted. He said that 90% of afforestation is owned by the farming community and this suggests the forests are widespread and dispersed. It is probably impossible to monitor every forest each year. Is it done on a sample basis each year and is the sample changed each year? What constitutes a forest? Is there a certain number of trees or hectares required before it is considered a forest and comes within Mr. Prendergast's remit?
Mr. Prendergast
There are two different issues here. One is the issue of monitoring a certain number of selected plots around the country under this regulation. These sites have been monitored since 1986 for forest health, etc. The Senator is talking about the forests planted by farmers and how we monitor them. We have strict environmental guidelines and regulations in place, the code of best forest practice and the various environmental guidelines which refer to archaeology, water, landscape and so forth.
When we grant aid planting by a forester, an essential requirement is compliance with these guidelines and regulations and with the green book on forestry. The latter is our operating manual and it describes the various operations to be done in the forest and how we expect them to be done. Applications are subject to consideration by our inspectors. When the land has been planted and the person claims their annual premium, it is subject to people certifying that the plantation is maintained in fit condition. We carry out spot checks on plantations and a risk analysis of the planting that is done over the years. We would decide, for example, to visit 200 forestry plantations that are seven years old in a particular year to see how they are being maintained. If a plantation is not being maintained there is a penalty procedure. Obviously, there is also an appeals procedure. The payment of the premium will be withheld if a person does not maintain their plantation in a proper state.
Mr. Foley can answer the question on what constitutes a forest.
Mr. Noel Foley
The definition of a forest is that it must be, on average, 40 metres wide. A broadleaf forest is 0.1 of a hectare and a conifer forest is one hectare in area. The definition of a forest varies in every country in Europe; there is no EU definition. The Irish definition of a forest is as I have outlined.
I was also going to ask that question. Is there a mean profile of a farmer-forester? I am not calling farmers mean and I do not want tractors being driven up to the gates again. I am talking about the average type of forester. Are we referring to Leitrim hillside farmers? I presume that is from where the investments are coming. Is it possible, if it is available, to circulate such a profile to the committee? It would give us a feel for the sector, as it were, and show if we could encourage further development in that regard in terms of who is likely to undertake planting.
Is the committee in a position to recommend that the Minister consider some method of using this directive to bolster the work of the forestry service, particularly in terms of water quality, landscape, archaeology and harvesting? Would that qualify for some of the 50% available?
When I was researching this issue, I discovered some information on the word "forest". Apparently, it is a Norman word meaning the ownership of a forest as opposed to the word "coill", which was used under Brehon law and which is, presumably, the root word of Coillte. Coills were owned by the communities around them. Perhaps we should refer to coills rather than forests when discussing this matter.
Mr. Prendergast
I would use the word "average" rather than "mean". The average size is roughly eight hectares. Whereas our activities in the past largely concentrated on marginal land, we are gradually moving down the hill. I visited a site for planting last year which consists of the finest agricultural land in Cork and 50% of which was due to be planted with broadleaf trees.
I welcome the Deputy's suggestion of further studies and how we might benefit. The only way we can benefit under this is if we engage in pilot studies related to monitoring and how we carry out the monitoring activity.
I will take two more speakers before concluding the meeting. We are due to have another meeting tomorrow morning. How will the monitoring that is due to take place be put into the public domain? Will there be a league table of how member states fare? Perhaps Mr. Prendergast will answer that question when he replies to the next question. Deputies Coveney and Eamon Ryan have final questions.
I apologise for not being present for the full meeting. I have just returned from holidays in the Canaries and there is not a single tree on the island on which I stayed. It was not a study tour of forestry. I thank the officials for answering questions today.
Are predictions made at the start of each year about the number of hectares which will be planted that year and, if so, is there an estimate of the number which will be planted next year? There is much concern in the forestry industry that planting will be significantly reduced next year. It is not only landowners who are concerned about it, but also people who have made significant investments in the forestry industry, such as those involved in processing, transport, tree felling or in the nursery sector. If planting is significantly reduced next year, what will happen to the nursery trees which have been developed in anticipation of a greater number of hectares being planted? Is there any truth in the rumour, which is causing concern among some nursery growers, that they will have to destroy some of their trees as a result?
We answered some of those questions already. Perhaps Mr. Prendergast could answer that question and the one I asked.
This is a new format. We should be careful that we do not get a reputation for ambushing officials who appear before the committee.
Why? These people are widely experienced.
The officials will be glad to know we will invite them back after Easter for a detailed review of the 1996 forestry plan. It was stated that we will keep the monitoring sites which were established in 1986. Perhaps we should consider new monitoring sites which examine the changing nature of Irish forestry as we move towards afforestation on farms and give us a different age profile. If all our monitoring sites date back to a particular time, I am concerned that we will not look at a new monitoring regime to fulfil the intent of this directive.
Mr. Prendergast
I hope I do not forget to answer any questions. As regards publications and public access, a report is published every year on forest conditions in Europe. Copies of the report have been given to members. It is a league table, so members can see where Ireland is. All reports are also available on the ICP website. The forestry service has copies which we circulate.
Members are aware of the budgetary situation which means we are faced in 2003 with a reduced budgetary allocation for forestry. The Minister has consulted widely with the sector and that process has been ongoing for weeks. The Minister decided before Christmas that the focus of the reduced allocation should be on the maintenance of a viable planting programme. That is what we have been working towards. Based on the figures we have to date, we anticipate a planting programme of at least 10,000 hectares this year. We are currently considering what will happen in terms of the balance of the allocation for other supporting measures and schemes we operate. The Minister's view is that we will have sufficient funding for a planting programme of at least 10,000 hectares. As regards other supporting schemes and measures, we hope to finalise that within the next couple of weeks. We are talking about a planting programme this year of at least 10,000 hectares.
I accept Deputy Eamon Ryan's point that we should provide the briefing material in advance. I did not say we would not change, but that the discussions with the Commission to date make it clear to the member states that because of limited funding, etc. in the short-term, people are expected to work on the existing network of sites. We change sites. For example, if a site is clear felled or wind blown, we must replace that with a different site.
As regards burning plants, which Deputy Coveney mentioned, we are looking at various ways of minimising the impact. We are talking to the National Roads Authority to encourage it to plant more trees on the sides of roads. We are looking at a number of innovative measures. The Minister has yet to finalise the funding allocation for the supporting measures. It is important that the sector has certainty early in the year about what will happen in 2003.