I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the report of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities on the Commission's Communication concerning Forestry Policy in the European Community.
This is an aspect of policy which, perhaps, it would be easy for us to let go almost by neglect. This is not, perhaps, relevant to us; we have only a very small area of forestry in this country; relatively few people are involved in forestry; we do not have a timber industry of any significance or magnitude. I would suggest, however, that it is, perhaps, precisely because of these reasons that we should be taking a very close look, indeed, at the European Community proposals regarding forestry. There is also, the fact that forests throughout the world are a very rapidly diminishing natural resource.
Throughout the Indian sub-continent, through Asia, through most of Africa, now through South America, forests are being depleted at an enormous rate. They have been depleted at the sort of rate from which we ourselves suffered over the past few centuries. This is having very major effects, both in the availability of timber and forest products throughout the world and many other ecological effects that could be of considerable significance.
Another very little realised but major aspect regarding forestry and timber products is that next to oil and hydrocarbons, the major import of the European Economic Community is timber and forest products, amounting to something in the region of 8,000 million units of account in the last year for which records are available. It is the second major import, both of the Community as a whole and of every single individual state within the Community, including this country. The imports have doubled over recent years. They are steadily increasing as each year goes by and, as technology develops, the likelihood is that dependence on timber as a natural resource will increase rather than diminish as new uses are found in the manufacturing industry generally and in the chemical industry, as well as in the more usual aspects of construction business and so on.
There is an increasing world-wide shortage which has been largely neglected. Just as, up to eight or nine years ago, we took oil and our sources of it for granted, in the same way there is an approaching crisis in supplies of timber and forest products. We are, perhaps, the worst situated of any of the countries in the Community in relation to this. We have made major efforts in recent years to increase our acreage of forestry, which is good. We have also attempted to develop some timber industry. This is also good and is something we have to look at very closely. Indeed, there are aspects of our timber industry which are very relevant to this resport which the commission is putting forward and which the Joint Committee and sub-committees have been considering.
Our reasons for requesting this debate are the great importance of the subject and its particular relevance to this country, and certain special problems that are specific to this country. The official title of the commission's communication is Forestry Policy of the European Community and it was dated Brussels, 1 December 1978. In it the commission indicate their intention to propose the development of a common forestry policy. They are not suggesting uniformity of forestry policy but are suggesting that there should be a common policy. The report reviews Community action in the forestry area to date. It considers the actual structure and ownership of forests and there are very marked differences between the situation in this country and in other countries of the EEC vis-a-vis State ownership and private ownership. These differences in ownership present certain major problems to this country. The report also goes into such matters as conservation, protection of the environment—to which we are paying so much more attention nowadays—the access and recreation matters, wildlife management and so on. It also goes into some slight detail on the actual legislation regarding forestry, taxation proposals, information and such like matters—the general instruments of forestry policy.
The report is basically a statement of aims rather than the design for specific action. It has two very specific draft proposals. One is that there be a Council resolution concerning the objectives and principles of forestry policy. The other draft proposal is for a Council decision to set up a permanent forestry committee representing the EEC. Incidentally, there is some slight doubt as to the actual entitlement of the EEC Commission and Council to involve themselves in forestry policies. I do not think this was specifically covered under the EEC treaties and agreements. However, it is generally accepted that forestry is, and should be, allied to, and considered in the same light as, agriculture. I am sure we in this country would wish to do so. We do not wish to see good agricultural land being turned over to forestry, or any conflict between land used for forestry and land used for agriculture—there is no need for such a conflict.
Another relevant aspect is the implications of forestry policy vis-a-vis regional policy. It would be our view that these two should be considered in a single context and this particular aspect is very relevant to certain developments which appear to be taking place.
Forestry in the Community generally is a major industry. No less than 21 per cent of the total land area of the EEC is in forests. We tend to think of Germany as being the main forest area but France accounts for about 45 per cent of the total. A table on page 11 of the report gives details of the forest area in hectares. Very substantial areas of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and even of the UK and Luxembourg, are covered in forest. The only very small percentage of land area relates to this country. No less than 32 per cent of the Luxembourg area has forest; 20 per cent of Belgium; 29 per cent of Germany; 25 per cent of France, and even Denmark, which tends to be regarded as treeless, has nearly three times our forest area, and the Netherlands and the UK have twice the percentage.
Despite all the excellent efforts that have been made over the last few years, we are still very far behind when one related these to the opportunities for forestry in Ireland and the ravages which have occurred over the last 200 or 300 years in relation to this very important and increasingly valuable natural resource. At present only about 5 per cent of our land area is covered by forests. Of this, about 670,000 acres are in State forest and about 202,000 acres in private forest. It is given in much detail, in the report of the Minister, for the Forest and Wildlife Service, which indicates that direct employment in the State forests at present is about 2,530. There is a very interesting point that, despite the small percentage of forest in Ireland the actual rate of growth per hectare, per acre in Ireland, is the highest in the Community. Certain areas of land, which are not suitable for agriculture, have better potential for forestry than anywhere else in western Europe and are probably among the best in the world. The trees grow rapidly and yet they do not suffer from the softening which occurs in other areas of rapid growth, so there is timber which grows relatively rapidly and which is of very high quality.
The actual details of the objectives and principles of the forestry policy, which are being proposed by the Commission, are in terms of general principles. Page 72 of the report states:
Forests should be protected and managed as a renewable resource to supply products and services which are essential to the quality of life in the European Community now and in the future. The main objectives should be: a sustainable increase in the economic production of timber, the conservation and improvement of the environment, public access to forests for recreation and, where practicable, these objectives should be pursued in conjunction with one another by multiple use management, the weight to be attached to each being varied according to ownership and the particular needs at a given place and time.
In general, we would agree with that. The fact that our forests are, very largely, State forests means that there is good public access. I am sure many Senators have taken advantage of the many improvements for which the Forest and Wildlife Service have been responsible in making our forests easily accessible and excellent recreation areas.
The commission suggest that forestry policy should recognise the long-term nature of forestry, which renders sudden major changes in policy undesirable and shall take account of distinctive characteristics and complementary roles of private forests. State forests and other publicly-owned forests, and seek to create conditions in which efficiently managed woodlands are economically viable. Again, we would agree with this general statement of principle and policy. Fortunately, there has been a tendency in the Community to give almost total priority to private forests, which suits all the other countries in the Community except, perhaps, ourselves. We have had to rely—and I am all in favour of private forestry—basically on State forestry. We must be very careful that any support which the commission give to the development of forestry will also go to State forests; otherwise we will lose out badly in this respect.
The report also states:
The third general principle is that forestry policy measures should be formulated and implemented with due regard to other national and Community policies especially those concerned with land use, agriculture, wood-using industries, regional development including employment and standards of living especially in economically less forward regions, urban and rural development.
Again, I am sure we would agree with these statements and suggestions as regards policy. There are many aspects within this. This is a non-party report by the Joint Committee and it has strong support, right across the board, from all three parties. Although these principles are ones which we could support, we would have reservations on whether, in practice, they are really being implemented by the Community at this stage, or whether the actions which are taking place really bear out the suggestions regarding, for example, regional development, or regarding wood-using industry. I shall come back to that in a moment.
The fourth general principle is, conversely, that agricultural and other policies with forestry implications should pay due regard to the functions and effective management of the forests. That is a general principle within the limits set by national legislation; whereas donors should be free to manage their forests, if they wish, forestry policy measures should be co-ordinated at Community level to the extent necessary to achieve common objectives. This last one may sound very well but it is a suggestion which we must regard with a considerable degree of caution and care.
The commission goes on to discuss the actual forest estates in various respects, the wood production itself, the various human, national environment and public aspects, what protects us, wildlife management and instruments of forestry policy. We would all, generally, accept these, and there have been many such developments in this country; in fact, we are well ahead, as the Minister would agree. On instruments of forestry policy, in general terms, I am sure we would like to see tax incentives for forestry and appropriate forestry legislation. We will support research and development in education and training, in general terms, information, consultation and so on. The Joint Committee are a little worried that this is not necessarily what is happening in practice. First, there is the question of State forests versusprivate forests. State forests are of major importance in this country and we must take care, in any agreements we come to, or any acceptance of the commission proposals, that private forests do not get an undue degree of support or, more seriously, that the State forests are not excluded from EEC support. We will have to be very careful about this.
We must look at the degree of limitation of Community aid. I know that the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund gives support. There have, however, been some suggestions emanating from that direction that the commission is considering amending previous suggestions; the effect of such amendment would be to limit Community aid to disadvantaged areas and this would have very serious implications for us. It is something that we should be very careful to ensure is not accepted by the persons concerned.
A specific matter is the question of our chipboard factories and in the Joint Committee's report we devote one specific area to this. It seems strange that, despite the extreme dependence of the European Community on timber imports—an independence which, as I have mentioned, is second only to its dependence on oil and which is, despite the very large forests existing in France and Germany, becoming greater and greater—this very small but important industry in this country, the first we have effectively developed relating to forest products, is experiencing difficulty in remaining viable. These are only two small factories involved and yet they are having considerable difficulties; not because of any lack of efficiency; not because of any lack in how it works, or initiative on the part of management or workers; but basically because of low cost imports from Third World countries, imports may well be very transient in nature and may well become extremely costly. It is, in the committee's view, difficult to understand how the EEC could continue to allow the situation to develop. It says in paragraph 12:
In the committee's view it makes little sense to allow existing factories to go under if the need is for making the Community less dependent on imports.
We must look very carefully at this situation. The committee specifically recommend that this matter be pursued with the Commission. I hope it will be pursued very vigorously, and I am sure it will.
We have, in forests, an important natural resource. It will also, I hope, in this country be, as well as a natural resource, a national resource—one of growing importance and growing value over the years. Let us not neglect forestry, particularly at this early stage when decisions are being taken and which obviously are likely to have very long-term effects for forestry. It will be very difficult in five, ten, 15 or 20 years, to try to change policies. Of all industries, the forestry industry is, perhaps, the most susceptible to long-term change and the least susceptible to sudden alteration, or compensation for past failures. I would hope—and I am sure it is the view of the committee—that a very firm and a very considered attitude be taken towards the commission's proposals. I would like to commend the Report of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities on the Commission's Communication concerning Forestry Policy in the European Community.