The next report was to be presented by Senator FitzGerald who, I understand, is speaking in the Seanad. Perhaps Deputy Noonan would present his own reports next.
Forestry Policy in the European Community.
This Report is on a Commission document which more or less contains a broad survey of forestry policy in Member States. Basically its object is to develop a common forestry policy in the sense of getting agreement on objectives and principles. The report before you takes the line that there be a common forestry policy as an adjunct not merely to CAP but to regional policy also. We would therefore welcome specific proposals towards that end. There is already a draft directive on Community aid for forestry before the Council. The previous Joint Committee made a report on this in 1975. We understand that directive has not proved acceptable to some Member States in its present form and that the Commission may amend it to confine it to the disadvantaged areas. In the report we make the point that the Commission seem more concerned with the needs of private forestry than those of State forestry. I suppose in a sense this does not suit Ireland. We are not against private forestry, however; on the contrary, we believe that private and co-operative forestry could profitably receive more encouragement and we would certainly welcome Community assistance in this matter.
In the final paragraph of the report there is a section dealing with the position of the chipboard industry which was brought to our notice in sub-committee by the Chairman and also by Deputy Daly. We believe there is an area of possible development here. It has been outlined on page 6. It was represented to the Committee that low-cost imports from Third Countries are contributing to the difficulties which the factories are experiencing here at present.
Finally, the report goes on to say that in the Committee's view it makes little sense to allow existing factories to go under if the need is to make the Community less dependent on imports. The Committee recommend that the matter be pursued with the Commission. The Committee wishes to express their thanks to the different associations that made comments to the Commission document. I recommend the report to the Joint Committee.
Thank you, Deputy Noonan. Are there any comments?
Deputy Leonard
On page 6 there is reference to our two chipboard factories. I understand that in 1977 approximately 680,000 cubic metres of chipboard were imported into England and that in the case of one particular brand at least 25,000 sheets were imported from both Roumania, and Ireland. I understand that England imports from Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, West Germany, Roumania, Austria, France, Spain, Portugal and Canada.
Of course a number of these are EEC countries.
Deputy Leonard
Even excluding Canada, there are five or six who are not EEC countries. If this country was able to secure that market it would render the position of our two factories much more favourable.
This is a very important area. For that reason I expressed concern that our only two chipboard factories are closing down. One of the main reasons is the price of the finished product. The price is low because apparently third countries are sending in their processed products as if they were mining them and they are not having regard to the cost of replanting. In that way it is not possible to compete. This should be taken very seriously by the Commission and something should be done to protect these industries. We now have a very large supply of soft woods becoming available. We need employment badly in forestry and in the processing of forestry raw materials. We should take the situation very seriously. If we cannot take afforestation seriously—because of the danger of prices being uneconomic—we will not be in a position to process these products when it comes to the time for so doing.
As somebody who has been very deeply concerned abont afforestation, may I comment on this matter. In the early 1970s, for my own information, I carried out a very detailed study, part of which I submitted for the information of the Committe in the past few days. At that time I was ambitious about becoming a future Minister for Lands when I hoped I could apply some of that study in practice. However, wiser counsel decided that my ministerial capabilities were more appropriate to the Army than afforestation.
I want to associate myself most wholeheartedly with what the Chairman has said in this connection. I do not think we have ever seriously got down to the question of afforestation in this country in which respect our capabilities and potential have never been tapped. I say that in the knowledge of the vast State forests in the mountainous areas of my constituency and where worthwhile and profitable employment has been given. For those reasons I feel this Committee should pursue this matter further while bearing in mind that forestry was not referred to in the EEC Treaty. Indeed there is doubt as to whether the Community are entitled to involve themselves in this subject. But we could include it under the headings of agricultural structures and regional development. Therefore, we should pursue this issue with renewed energy.
All of us—and those of us who have been associated with political parties have contributed through our parties' policies, to afforestation from time to time. We have all had views on the subject. But nothing practical has been done beyond that carried out by the Forestry Division. Indeed there is less acreage under afforestation today than there was in the 1971-72 period. In 1976 the actual acreage planted was 21,950 acres; in 1972 it was 24,423 acres. Therefore there has been a decline in the acreage we are planting. In order to supplement our forestry programme—effectively and efficiently administered by the Forestry Division we should embark upon an extensive private planting programme with EEC aid.
I agree fully with the Chairman when he said that no acre of land should be planted which is suitable for any type of agricultural crop. There is a vast area of land in this country, particularly in the west and in Gaeltacht areas which many people might contend is not suitable for afforestation. But we must remember what the French Government have successfully done in the Bay of Biscay having regard to the climatic conditions there, the Atlantic winds. Our conditions in the west are even more favourable than those in the Bay of Biscay. For that reason land which is not suitable for the production of a satisfactory agricultural crop should be used for afforestation.
There should also be in every county a county forestry board to sponsor and work private schemes of afforestation. We must bear in mind that in the Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Finland a spruce tree takes 120 years to grow to maturity whereas in our more favourable climatic conditions it takes 40 years only. We should examine the situation in Sweden very carefully because there are very great tax concessions there and additionally there is a wonderful private service made available to anybody who wants it. There is also the very successful forestry programme carried out in practically all parts of France. We can take example from Canada and even from the United States where there are over 5 million acres under afforestation. The Canadian Embassy can supply us with most outstanding data in regard to their extensive forests in Ontario, British Columbia and other parts. We cannot compare ourselves with these countries because of our size. Nevertheless what has been done there in the growing and production of timber can certainly be done here.
In the early 1970s when we were applying for membership of the EEC I felt it would have been a wonderful opportunity for us to forge into this venture and make substantial headway in afforestation. Practically nothing has been done. Italy was deprived completely of its forests mainly in the First World War but a modern reafforestation scheme has taken place there with the result that 16 per cent of the country's acreage is now under forestry.
It is well worth noting that the Committee on Irish Forestry, appointed by the Department of Agriculture in 1907 and which was the last of many commissions which inquired into the position, reported that all the men of experience and expert knowledge are agreed that in soil and climate Ireland is particularly well favoured for forestry purposes, and on the question of her capacity to grow timber as well as any other country in northern Europe there can be no doubt whatsoever. That report was made in 1907. From 1907 to the first World War we had our own problems; then we had our civil war period; the first Government from 1922 to 1932 had their hands reasonably full and we never seem to have got down to private planting in conjunction with State planting. We could provide work here for at least 15,000 people on afforestation. We have only 2,500 approximately employed in this field at the moment. In European countries afforestation provides part-time employment; during the harvest time the small farmer goes back to his land and the moment he has it tilled and sown in the spring he works on forestry. This system should be looked at seriously.
All governments have been merely tinkering with the problem of afforestation. There is a wonderful future in this for us; we have the soil and we have the climate; there is land available in certain areas for afforestation which is no use for agriculture. We have workers trained by the Forestry Department and they are skilled in many fields in relation to forestry. These people would be prepared to take charge of private plantation if the money was made available and if we got down to it and drafted a scheme. I hope the EEC, if they have not got forestry responsibilities, will undertake forestry responsibilities and ensure that funds will be made available on the presentation of good and proper schemes for the purpose of giving employment. In rural Ireland afforestation is well worthwhile for the provision of employment. As Deputy Leonard has said, we have all the by-products. We have turf, paper, creosote, tar, oil and all the other products which come from timber. These have been untapped here and until such time as there is a courageous effort to tap the by-products of our timber we cannot say that we have succeeded.
I pay tribute to Deputy Noonan on his report because it shows that the Committee have been concerned. I appeal to the Chairman of this Committee to endeavour, in so far as it is possible, to get a greater degree of consideration from the EEC for the great possibilities here for afforestation.
I would like to welcome the report of the Commission in this area. It is a very important area. The whole question of afforestation in the EEC is a very important one. It is clear at this stage that it is the intention to propose the development of a common forestry policy but only in the sense of having some clearly defined objectives and principles of national forest policies which are common to all Member States. Even this step at this point is a welcome one and I would fully support it together with the fact that a standing and permanent forestry committee is to be established at EEC level.
In examining the report we found a number of differences that stand out very clearly from our point of view. First and foremost it is intended to deal with the conservation of nature and the protection of the human environment, public access and recreation and wildlife management. These are particularly important aspects and perhaps they are the less difficult ones to deal with by way of instruments, regulations and support and aid. In that respect An Taisce gave us a fairly comprehensive report of their views and that is something which the Committee welcome very much. One of the fundamental problems when we come to the economic aspect is the feature of Irish forestry whereby 77 per cent of Irish forests are State-owned whereas throughout the Community as a whole 60 per cent of the forests are privately owned. This is obviously going to lead to differences of opinion about what measures should be adopted at EEC level. It will also lead to a difficulty in that some of the measures and the instruments which might be introduced could be quite suitable for private forestry where maybe there is a large body of capital built up in a particular forest and it is therefore well worth reinvesting in that area for a private individual whereas when we are attempting to get private individuals to start off they have not got this resource and different measures would be required for that situation. I hope that in any consideration that is subsequently given to this report by the standing forestry committee they will take this difference into consideration and that they might seek measures which would enable the Irish forestry industry, and forestry in general from an amenity point of view, to develop harmoniously with that in the rest of the EEC countries. I welcome the report. It is a very useful report. A good deal of valuable information was put together in compiling it and I congratulate the Chairman.
Thank you, Deputy. It is easy to see why private forestry has not developed here. There was little or no inducement to develop it. We have a grant of £35 per acre which would scarcely buy the spades for planting so that the thing is absolutely farcical at this stage. Substantial aid would have to come from some source, if not from the EEC certainly from the Member States themselves. I believe no other Member state is in the same position that we are in where we have only 4 per cent of the total land area under forestry as against an average of 21 per cent in the Community as a whole. There is a very strong case to be made because of the very sizeable imports of timber into the Community. Goodness knows we have enough surpluses of other products that we are howling and shouting about and here is a crop that can be grown without fear of producing a surplus for some considerable time. I hope the report emphasises sufficiently what we feel about this area so far as we ourselves are concerned and so far as the Community as a whole is concerned.
In the case of the Shannon valley, for example, where there are lands that cannot be used for eight months of the year because of its poor quality and because the lands are waterlogged, if substantial funds were made available to encourage private planting I am sure they would be availed of.
If certain peoples' promises to drain the Shannon ever materialised it would be a pity to put it under forestry at that stage.
Deputy Leonard
The point was made that there probably would be a conflict between State and privately owned forests, but this country is probably gaining there because much of the private forestry here is neglected. Most of it was planted on land where, if the produce was harvested, it never would be planted again because it is some of the best land in the country. This country has benefited in respect of the high percentage of forestry owned by the State because it is of a much higher quality and will come to fruition much more quickly than the neglected forestry in private ownership.
It is extremely important that action be taken at this point. The National Economic and Social Council are examining this also at present. They had a special study made which is being considered at the moment and something interesting may come out of it as a guide to Government policy. Obviously the Minister for Economic Planning and Development will be taking a view on the recommendations of the NESC in this regard. I agree that we should be very concerned about chipboard factories. Where we are dealing with indigenous resources, if private industry cannot handle them effectively in the bridging period during which they have to become economic perhaps the State will have to do the job. It is interesting that the firms concerned have had foreign participation. There is nothing wrong with that but we must be careful when we deal with our own resources. It would be a pity if the existing plants were allowed to go out of existence. We may have to pick them up ourselves until they are made viable and economic and then sell them back to private industry if necessary.
There are one or two points with which I am concerned. Quite rightly it is mentioned on page 2 of the report that importation of wood products to the Community at present is second only to that of oil. There will be a worldwide problem very quickly due to depletion of forestry resources on an enormous scale and we may find that the next serious crisis is related to wood products. In some ways that crisis may be more difficult than the hydrocarbon crisis that faces us at present.
As Deputy Flanagan has indicated, we are better situated than almost any other country to grow trees but we have only a tiny percentage of trees. Our efforts to develop a forestry industry—we must think of it in terms of an industry not just simply the planting of trees—are being crippled by the appalling situation that Deputy Leonard mentioned in connection with the chip-board factories. I was horrified to read on page 4 of our report that the Commission were considering amending the proposal and perhaps limiting Community aid to the disadvantaged areas, to the very areas with which we are concerned. I should like to see the words, "the Committee recommends that this matter be pursued with the Commission" interpreted in a more vigorous manner. We are facing an extremely serious problem and if we do not cope with it now it will be very difficult to do later on.
How can we pursue this matter further?
I do not know what Deputy Noonan, as Chairman of the Sub-Committee involved, may suggest. Is this a subject that we should recommend for discussion in the House? The Deputy did not put forward that suggestion but the matter has generated so much concern around this table today and perhaps the report of the Committee could be of information to the Seanad and the Dáil in any open discussion on this matter. This is a very important matter. If the EEC do not regard it as seriously as this Committee do, perhaps we may have to bring it more into the open on the floor of the Oireachtas.
I take it the Senator is saying that we want to stimulate more than this Committee; we want to stimulate the Government into action because it is at that level that it will have to be brought forward to the Council chambers and the various areas in Europe where it can be advanced.
I am referring it to Deputy Noonan.
I do not see any reason why it cannot be included in discussion on the floor of the Seanad or Dáil.
Paragraphs 1 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW PARAGRAPH.
I think it is within the discretion of the Chairman to accept the following amendment which I move:
Before paragraph 13, to insert a new paragraph as follows:
In view of the importance of forestry policy in the Community the Joint Committee requests that a debate take place in Seanad Éireann. In this connection the Joint Committee refers to the Order of Seanad Éireann of 14 February 1979.
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph 14 agreed to.
Draft report, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered: To report accordingly.