I welcome the Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Cahill, from County Tipperary. We are here to discuss the report of the committee, entitled Issues impacting the Forestry Sector in Ireland, which was published in March 2021. It is timely. One of the new roles of the Seanad in our renewal process is to review reports of Oireachtas committees six to 12 months after they have been first published. We will look at the recommendations of the reports to see if they have been implemented. If they have been implemented we will look to establish how successful the implementation of the recommendations has been. If recommendations have not been implemented, we will seek to establish when they will be implemented and, if not, why not.
Report of Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Motion
I move:
That Seanad Éireann shall take note of the Report of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and the Marine entitled 'Issues impacting the Forestry Sector in Ireland', copies of which were laid before Seanad Éireann on 2nd March, 2021.
I welcome the Minister of State and Deputy Cahill to the House. As a Fianna Fáil member of the agricultural panel, I am glad that Deputy Cahill is only passing through here today. It is a House that I never want to see him in unless - and I say this genuinely as a good friend and colleague - he is back as Chair of the committee. I hope that some day in the future that will happen.
I welcome the Deputy and thank him for the lead he took on this report on what was identified, in the formation of the last Government, as an area of major crisis in our agriculture sector, its role in carbon sequestration and the whole climate action process. It has been a well-documented issue and this is not the first discussion we have had on forestry.
I am not going to go over old ground. I will stick specifically to the report before us. What else would I say as a member of the joint committee other than it is a fantastic report. However, a report is only as good as the paper it is written on. It is the implementation of the report that is the proof of the pudding at the end of the day, as they say.
I compliment Deputy Cahill on the fact that he added this issue to the work programme of the committee very early in the game, and on the amount of work that he personally put into the compilation of the report, along with the other committee members. While there are acknowledgments in the report of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, I am very much aware of numerous other meetings that were held - mainly online because of Covid - with other parties, stakeholders and people involved who are not even referenced in the report. I attended some of those meetings with Deputy Cahill. A large body of work was put into the compilation of the report.
With regard to the content of the report, as with any report, the recommendations, observations and conclusions on pages 13 and 14 are what is important. As I have stated, the report is only effective if and when the recommendations are implemented, implemented successfully and have the desired effect.
I welcome, since the publication of the report, the appointment of Ms Jo O'Hara to oversee the implementation of the Mackinnon report. As we all know, the Mackinnon report was a previous report commissioned on forestry which is referenced in this report on numerous occasions. It was felt by the committee that the Mackinnon report was doing the proverbial life-after-publication thing of sitting on a shelf. I welcome the appointment of Ms O'Hara to oversee the implementation of that report.
I compliment the Minister of State on bringing forward the legislation which alleviated some of the appeals issues that were adding to the backlog in the licensing system. The backlog in the licensing system is the issue that has been highlighted most in all discussions on forestry over the last few years. One of the recommendations of the report is that the licensing system is eased up going forward. There is a necessity that when people apply for a licence, they are given a timeframe as to when they will get a response, whether good, bad or indifferent.
It is strongly recommended in the report that one licence should cover an entire cycle of forestry. I feel very strongly about this. Built into an afforestation licence should be a forestry management plan that includes roads and felling, which we know will happen at some stage in the life cycle of the forest. If this recommendation were implemented, there would be no need for three applications. That three licence applications must be made for one forest adds to the backlog.
Another major issue in the report is that of ash dieback. We recommend a quarterly report on the reconstitution and underplanting scheme, RUS, and how it is progressing. We believe the scheme needs to be examined. It is not effective and there needs to be more compensation for those who have lost their plantations through ash dieback.
Another recommendation, which I welcome, is to develop a species of ash that would be ash-dieback resistant. However, we must be very careful and ask when a native Irish ash becomes other than native if we modify its make-up. While we always have a big debate about native broadleaf trees, it is strongly recommended that we further the science on developing resistant ash. However, we have to be careful not to cross the threshold whereby a native ash would become something other than that.
On licensing, I accept that the dashboard we saw last week indicated an increase. This is welcome. However, if the indicated number issued per month is realised, we will still reach only 6,000 ha. Our target is 8,000. Therefore, we need a significant further increase.
The major requirement, which comes across very strongly in the report, is confidence in the forestry sector. People will not want to sow trees and forestry targets will not be met if we cannot come up, here and now, with some way of re-instilling confidence in the farming community, in particular.
I now call on the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Cahill.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for the invitation to speak today.
After the election in 2020, several stakeholders in the forestry sector told me their industry was in crisis. In the previous Dáil, attempts were made to introduce legislation on the appeals process, which was causing great delays at that stage in the issuing of licences. Thankfully, we got that legislation through early in the lifetime of the current Dáil. The committee decided it would have a series of meetings on the forestry sector to determine what it could recommend to address the large backlog in the licensing system and, as Senator Paul Daly has said, rebuild confidence in the sector.
Forestry is a very important industry to rural Ireland. In the world we live in, it also has an influential role to play in addressing climate change and meeting our climate change targets. As a farmer, I find it extremely frustrating that the potential of forestry in reducing our emissions is not being fulfilled.
Forestry is an important industry, employing 12,000 people. Our report set out to address four bullet points: the current licensing issues and the backlog; encouraging new entrants into the sector; achieving the climate action target of 8,000 ha; and determining what could be done for the owners of plantations with ash dieback, who have suffered very severe financial loss. We held meetings between October 2020 and October 2021 and produced 12 recommendations for our report. We met all stakeholders and there were numerous meetings. The first recommendation was to build trust and have a charter of rights. We saw this working very well in other areas of the agriculture sector, especially in respect of farm schemes, which faced a similar problem ten or 15 years ago in that there were no established timeframes for payments. Since a charter of rights was established, 97% or 98% of payments have been made on a specific day. This has restored confidence considerably in the farm schemes. Something similar needs to be done in forestry so an applicant for a forestry licence will have a response from the Department within three, four or six months, or whatever timeframe is set out. That is essential if we are to get people back into forestry to meet our afforestation targets. I appeal to the Minister to establish a charter of rights.
The licensing system is really frustrating for stakeholders and is just not fit for purpose. While the licence output has increased considerably, there is still a significant backlog. The original target was the issuing of 100 licences per week. Thankfully, that target is being met consistently but there is a major flaw in that afforestation licences are still significantly below target. Stakeholders tell us we need at least 20 afforestation licences per week to be issued to go somewhere towards meeting our target of 8,000 ha per year.
A stakeholder told me a couple of weeks ago that in 2017 there were just under 12,000 afforestation applications in the system and that these resulted in the issuing of just under 6,000 afforestation licences in that year. At present in 2022, there are slightly fewer than 4,000 afforestation licence applications in the system. A rule of thumb is that about 64% of applications result in licences. That indicates a huge drop. In 2017, just under 12,000 afforestation licence applications were coming through the system; today, the number is one third of that. That really pinpoints the serious lack of confidence within the industry and the reluctance of potential applicants.
We all agree we have targets to meet and challenges to address regarding climate change and climate action. Getting farmers involved in afforestation is critical. The figures are extremely worrying. Given a conversion rate of 64% and the number of applications currently in the system, a maximum of 4,600 ha will be planted in 2022. That would be if all the licences got through the system in 2022, which obviously will not happen. This shows the challenges we have to face.
We need to revamp forestry. There has been too much bad press over forestry applications, the issuing of licences and ash dieback. It has left a sour taste in people’s mouths. We need to revamp and relaunch to get people interested again.
I have been very consistent on ash dieback. I am extremely disappointed that we have not put a reasonable financial package in place for the plantation owners who suffered huge financial losses as a result of ash dieback. First, they should get a grant to clear their plantations. While there is a scheme in place, farmers are not at all happy with it. They should be given a choice if they want to replant. The premium should be made available to them again.
A 20-year premium scheme should be made available to those farmers again. While it would not fully compensate them for the huge financial loss they suffered - ash was to be a financially attractive crop for them - it would give the industry some confidence that fair play was happening.
We need to revamp the current premium scheme for anyone entering afforestation. Some years ago, we reduced the period covered by the scheme from 20 to 15 years. I accept that the amount of money paid out remained the same and the rate of premium per year was increased. We need to make it attractive again for people to afforest. We need to go back to a 20-year scheme and increase the rate per hectare to make it financially attractive for people to afforest. It is essential that this is done if we are to go some way towards meeting our afforestation targets.
Of the licences issued last year for afforestation, half were for broadleaf trees. While broadleaf trees are very welcome and have a role to play in making the countryside attractive, carbon sequestration, etc., the harsh reality of life is that without Sitka spruce, there will not be a forestry industry.
I will not be here in 25 years' time but we will be criticised in 25 or 30 years for what we did in Ireland in 2021 and 2022 when we did not plant sufficient Sitka spruce to keep forestry for our mills. We will need timber for building houses, etc., in future. It is an essential raw material. As I said, forestry is a great industry for remote parts of rural Ireland that find it hard to attract industry. In 25 or 30 years' time, people will ask why we were reluctant to plant Sitka spruce. The amount being planted will result in a serious shortfall in years ahead. That we allowed that to happen will reflect very badly on the powers that be. Unfortunately, that is the situation.
We have produced our report. Forestry is an industry that can contribute greatly to the battle against climate change. It creates jobs in rural Ireland where they are extremely scarce. We have to reduce our emissions from the agriculture industry. We understand that fully. If we implement the 12 recommendations in this report, we will restore confidence in the sector and everyone will be a winner. We will reduce our emissions, increase carbon sequestration and keep a vital industry going in rural Ireland.
I recognise that the appointment of an adviser to ensure the Mackinnon report is implemented is most welcome. Other recommendations in this report need to be implemented to restore confidence in the forestry industry, ensure it prospers into the future and continues its contribution to the country, both economically and as regards climate action, which is something we all want to achieve.
I join Senator Paul Daly and others in complimenting Deputy Cahill and the members of the committee he chairs on their work on the vital issue of forestry. In many ways, I will simply echo some of Deputy Cahill's points. Having looked at the recommendations, while they are ambitious in certain places, they are achievable. I know from speaking to those working in the forestry sector that this has been a very difficult period. They have communicated that to the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, clearly. The fact that, of late, we have been planting fewer trees than we were in 1990 certainly raises eyebrows.
I echo Deputy Cahill's comment that we need to be ambitious. We need to start to look at where we want to be in ten, 15 and 20 years' time, rather than talking about short-term licensing. We must ensure we have a viable forestry industry that is financially sustainable for those involved in it and contributes towards environmental sustainability.
If I have one criticism of the Department, it is that it is not being sufficiently ambitious. We need ambition and that is encouraged by the recommendations. Forestry will represent and is, in many ways, one of the easiest solutions to tacking climate change. I encourage the Minister of State to continue to engage with the sector and continue to be ambitious.
I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to deal with this particular issue. It is her portfolio and area of responsibility. I also warmly welcome Deputy Cahill and thank him for his enormous work and leadership in the Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I acknowledge that Senators Paul Daly, Lombard and O'Donovan are also members of that committee and have done an enormous amount of work.
The word "ambition" is important. We have to be realistic. Our report was completed a year ago and we made 12 solid recommendations. Forestry is regularly discussed on the committee and the Chair will vouch for that. It is constantly exercising the minds of members of the committee who want to see ambition with regard to the delivery of new entrants and retaining people in the industry. That is important.
I also thank the Cathaoirleach for his initiative to discuss some committee work in the Seanad. It has been a year and things move very slowly in politics, life and, in particular, forestry. I think back to the first time the Minister of State attended the Seanad in her new role. I was pretty harsh then in terms of the demands I made of her. She has a difficult brief but she has worked exceptionally hard for it. She has had to navigate officials in her Department and take on a system that had been embedded for a long time. Now, one year on, we are all in a better place and have a greater understanding of the task and challenges that lie ahead. It is very important that we take that on board.
We must be mindful of all stakeholders. Environmental and other groups have legitimate concerns and we must acknowledge that. However, we must get over those concerns and find a way to have a progressive and ambitious forestry sector. It ticks many boxes in terms of the environmental and green agenda, and we have to harness that as well.
I looked at the report again today and there were 12 key issues. I will stick to the key issues, rather than the debate. The motion before us is on the report. It is not on what we think about forestry but the report from the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I will address the key issues rather than reading out the 12 recommendations as that would take too long. These include overseeing implementation of each of the Mackinnon report recommendations and developing a customer service charter to assist the building of confidence in the system. We have heard about building confidence in the system. The Chairman spoke of the importance of a customer service model, which is very important.
Additional resources should be allocated to deal with the enormous backlog. We still have a backlog; let us be honest about it. People are frustrated with the system and it has to improve. While we are addressing the issue, the backlog in licensing is simply unacceptable and will not be sustainable going forward.
The joint committee looked at the issue of accessing the licensing system without delay. That is still a key priority for us one year on. Perhaps the most controversial recommendation, one on which we need focus much more, is that, in addition to an accessible licensing system, a single consent is introduced covering planting, road construction, management, felling and harvesting. It would be a one-stop shop, in effect, which would bring everything together.
That is where the kernel of the problem is.
We also talked about supporting research and assistance in terms of species and innovation along with grants to cover the financial loss of clearing affected plantations. The Chairman of the committee has talked about the ash dieback challenges. The report also recommends compiling a detailed report on the origins of ash dieback. We need to do more work on that and we need a financial package to support affected foresters and farmers to clear their land. We need to recognise the skill of stakeholders to work together effectively. People want to work here effectively. We want to get on with the job.
I am not expecting the Minister of State to give a full response to all of this today; it is really a sharing of our concerns one year on from our report. There is a suggestion that we develop a strategy for the reconstitution of the elm, a very important species and one we should be encouraging. We also need to enhance the environmental benefits and increase the proportion of broadleaf in our native woodland afforestation. I know the Minister of State is very supportive of that. It was one of the key recommendations in our report. We also highlighted the recreational advantages of forestry. "Closer to nature" is the phase the Minister of State uses so much herself here. It is about how we can showcase and promote the real opportunities for recreation in our State forestry and private forestry. I would like to see a greater synergy there. There are issues we need to look at again in terms of how we treat private investment companies in forestry and how we treat Coillte. I have some concerns. It was not something we identified in the committee report but I want to flag it to the Minister of State today. How can we encourage new and existing farmers to enter, re-enter and remain in the forestry programme? It is a significant challenge. We must meet our national target of 8,000 ha of afforestation annually. It is a massive task and we are nowhere near it yet. It is set out in our climate action plan obligations. I know the Minister of State is committed to doing it but there are enormous challenges.
I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House and the Cathaoirleach for providing us with the opportunity to review our 12 recommendations. It is one year on. This motion was tabled in March 2021. We are now discussing it in the House and still a lot of what we recommended has not been implemented. For today's engagement in Seanad Éireann to be meaningful, we need to keep in constant contact with the Minister of State. We will do that through the committee and I know the Minister of State is always available to it. We must keep on top of our commitments in respect of this really important piece of work.
I thank the Minister's officials who have made themselves available. There have been many heated debates, as the officials will certainly have told the Minister, when the members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine have cross-examined and made demands of the officials. It is always with the best objective of having a good, ambitious, progressive and sustainable forestry sector. There are enormous opportunities for the environmental sector. There are win-win situations for everyone. It is vital to get the synergy right, harness the ambition, increase our targets and deliver on the targets set by the Government and the committee.
I welcome the Minister and the Chairman of the joint committee, Deputy Cahill. I compliment the members of the committee present in the Chamber. Senators Boyhan, O'Donovan and Daly have been very active in the agriculture committee. All three are members, along with myself. We have worked with the Chairman of the committee on a very workmanlike basis over the last 18 months. We have dealt with forestry every month, I think. On several occasions we have brought senior members of the Executive before us, including the Secretary General of the Department, assistant secretaries and the Minister of State herself.
How we get moving on this issue has been a real challenge for the committee. We published the report 11 months ago with 12 recommendations on which we are hoping to get movement. We could have a real change of ethos when it comes to how forestry is looked at within the farming community. There is also a need to move the forestry agenda forward within the Department itself. Two entities working together can come up with a solution that can help the environment and society and also help us reach our climate action goals. Never has a conversation about forestry been so important when we consider where we are today. The one figure that always frightened me was the afforestation programme figure. It dropped about 30% at one stage last year. They are really frightening statistics. The committee Chairman said that future generations will judge us. I am fearful of what my daughters will think of us in 25 years' time going by the figures we have produced in the last 18 months. They are not good reading. That is why this report is so important.
The report, which most Oireachtas Members have read and commented on, makes 12 recommendations springing from our series of hearings, which we believe can move the industry forward. The recommendations need to be acted upon within the Department. I will just mention a few. The customer charter is really important. It is the foundation for building confidence within the sector in a solution they can work through. The customer charter has worked really well in other parts of agriculture. The need for it in forestry is very evident. System changes within the Department are also really important. I refer to basic stuff such as having the ability to track an application online. The computer system in the Department is from a different age. We need to know what is going to happen with this online system in respect of file tracking and timelines for files. We need definitive adherence to those timelines. That in turn will give confidence to the sector and to the industry so they can hope to reach the target of 8,000 ha which unfortunately we are really far off.
Ash dieback has been raised by other Members ad nauseam at this stage. It is about trying to get that amount of land that is unfortunately idle at the moment. I think it is literally growing dead wood for lack of a better terminology. We must encourage that massive potential to be utilised for climate change issues and for industrial issues to ensure we actually have timber going forward. I do not think we have managed to win that debate. The schemes brought forward by the Department have not been effective. Persuading the massive cohort of people who are affected by ash dieback to get involved so that land can be cleared and more trees put in it in a short period is a real challenge. We mentioned that in the report. A year on we need to see real movement and I do not think we see that at the moment.
Ash dieback came in because of our lack of biosecurity measures. There is fear because we have a shortage of timber that our biosecurity measures are not appropriate when we are importing a large amount of timber. We are worried about things like the spruce bark beetle coming in from the UK. If that was to land on our shores it would have potential for similar damage to that caused by ash dieback. It is in the southern parts of the UK at the moment. Implementing appropriate biosecurity measures is a massive issue for us.
The whole thing about having a single consent process is key to making sure the entire process works, as other Senators have mentioned. A single consent process has worked in other industries and in other ways of doing business. If we had a single consent process in place we would see the timeline people could work towards, with confidence coming back into the sector. That would play into the whole narrative of trying to build confidence.
The potential that exists for forestry is amazing. The key issue is to try to harness that potential in the future. That will be a defining factor in how we can reach our climate action targets. There are proposals to spend hundreds of millions of euro on other projects relating to climate, such as wind energy, but this is something that is within our control. We have to find a solution so we can encourage the farming community to come on board and to move away from 30% afforestation to a more appropriate percentage. We should be seeking to reach the 8,000 ha. That is the kernel of the issue.
This report has been a positive step. It has pushed this to the top of the agenda. Government action is required to ensure the industry moves forward. I welcome the Minister of State's response to these issues because they are key issues and if we do not deliver, the next generation will not forgive us.
I welcome the Minister of State and the Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Cahill. I commend my colleagues, Senators Boyhan, Boylan, Paul Daly and Lombard, on the quality of their work on this report. I found it incredibly informative and helpful. I am a Member for the agricultural panel and come from a farming background and it helped me get a sense of the issues facing small farmers in the forestry sector. I will briefly go through some of the notes in the report.
One of the notes is that the committee has been receiving a regular forestry licensing dashboard from the Department, which shows the number of licences issued. It would be a good idea to have this dashboard expanded. As is said in the report, and I agree with it, the dashboard needs to be expanded to show how long applications have been in the Department's system. I referenced this dashboard a few minutes ago in the health committee meeting on Sláintecare and suggested that these dashboards are very good not only for public representatives to be able to see what is happening but also for public accountability. I suggested something similar for the implementation of Sláintecare. Public accountability and accessible information are vital, whether it relates to forestry licences or the national roll-out of Sláintecare and the future of our healthcare system. This tool is extremely useful and it is helpful to see the rates of planting, although many of us would like to see more of it taking place.
The Minister of State was in the House last week when we were discussing recording hedgerows. She mentioned that we will not record that because it will send our numbers askew. I have been thinking about that in the interim and I know why we are not recording the cutting of hedgerows. However, it is part of the fact of the matter and it is important to have a way to track the cutting of hedgerows and its impact. If that makes us look not so great, that is the reality. It is important to have that accountability. I hope this dashboard is maintained as a point of information for many years to come.
In the section of the report relating to the programme for Government, the committee recommends that quarterly meetings take place between the Department and stakeholders to discuss and monitor the progress of its implementation. Will the Minister of State confirm if that recommendation has been taken on board and which stakeholders the Department is meeting with on this?
I was concerned when I read in the report about what the IFA has said. The IFA stated that this backlog is jeopardising jobs and businesses that have been built up over the past 40 years to support the expansion of the private forest sector. Reforestation is about a just transition and it was, arguably, the first big move to just transition jobs in Ireland. The core of just transition is that these are not just jobs but that they must be fair, well-paid, sustainable and secure jobs. If they are not, we will see people leaving this sector. We have seen that already, but that cannot become the norm. We definitely need more people signing up to this work, especially small farmers.
That leads me to my next point, which is the role of small farmers and the impact these delays are having on their participation in the process. Other Senators have referred to confidence in the system so I will not labour the point, but if people do not have confidence in the system, all the implementation plans in the world will not make a difference. I will quote my party colleague, Deputy Sherlock, as reported by Agriland the other day. Speaking on ambition in the sector he said:
I am not convinced ... that all of the stakeholders through Project Woodland are as enthusiastic about the future of forestry policy. I think some of those stakeholders are becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of ambition.
Ambition was mentioned here previously. If we have concerns about confidence in the sector and whether we are being ambitious enough, these are very big challenges to overcome. Does the Minister of State have any comments on those challenges? They are big challenges to overcome before we even get another tree into the ground.
The report mentions the need to incentivise smaller farmers in this industry. I encourage the Minister of State to take on board the recommendation regarding premiums on page 10 of the report. If large, commercial multinationals can get premiums paid over ten years, is it fair that farmers on smaller lands have to wait up to 20 years?
Ultimately, all these issues bring us back to the most important and cogent point, which is that we need to plant more trees, and the only way to do that is to ensure forestry licences are provided. Felling and planting licences are simply taking too long to be processed. We have been having this conversation for the two years I have been a Member of this House. Our environment, our agricultural workers and our biodiversity are suffering as a result. I look forward to hearing from the Minister of State about her strategies for resolving these issues and for progressing with cutting waiting times for planting licences, which is badly needed.
I thank the committee for all its work on this report and I thank the Minister of State for taking the time to attend this debate. We could talk about trees all day, and it is great that everybody now recognises the importance of trees. I remember planting trees about 25 years ago. We had recycled a load of aluminium cans. A fellow from Longford town, John Crossan, had a dream that one could turn cans into trees. He recycled 250,000 cans and bought 5,000 trees. We went all around Ireland planting trees with schoolchildren. It was an amazing experience. Now, 25 years later, it is a topic for the Seanad.
I commend the work of the Minister of State, Senator Hackett. There were many problems in the forestry section of the Department, and there still are, but the numbers do not lie. Níor bhris an dea-fhocal béal duine riamh. It is always good to point to wins when we have them. There is major investment in resources in the Department and there are more ecologists. I believe the Minister of State started out with two when she took office and now there are 27. That is very important work because we have to put the right tree in the right place and we must have ecologists in the Department doing the work. One can always pay somebody to say it is all good, but there must be neutral departmental ecologists who are going to do this correctly. I welcome that, as it very important. In the past we have seen too much Sitka spruce and not enough native woodland or perhaps native woodland that did not survive and was mismanaged. There have been many forestry issues, so it is important to make that point.
Licensing in 2021 was 56% higher than in 2020, with 4,050 licences issued in 2021 compared with 2,592 issued in 2020. That is a huge achievement considering the backlog and the bureaucracy. One could say I am biased because I am in the same political party, but I know the Minister of State is working night and day on this. We must acknowledge progress when there is progress because that encourages more progress. The civil servants with the Minister of State have also worked hard on this and we should acknowledge that work. Things are improving. It started badly but we see progress in that realm.
It is also important that we look at forestry as an industry. There is a myth that all Sitka spruce is bad and that if somebody is planting Sitka spruce and not native woodland it means the person does not care. There is also the huge industry of housing construction and the materials needed for housing. Now, more than ever, timber-framed housing is being considered as a much better model than the concrete blocks of old. Even bricklayers are saying that their time is running out because we are going to be looking towards more timber-framed houses. That is why it is great that we plant Sitka spruce and it is managed properly so it becomes the wood we need to build the houses and therefore bring down the price of housing and the price of materials. It is important to say that. It is much more nuanced than saying all Sitka spruce is evil and all native woodland is good. Let us be realistic and have an intelligent debate about it, because sometimes we get lost in oversimplifying the debate on forestry.
However, I must say that native woodlands are just the best thing on the planet. They are so important. They are good for our mental health and physical health, even if we did not have-----
I thank Senators for their contributions, but I remind them that this is a debate on the report.
Yes, this is quoting the report. It is what prompted me to raise the issue. The report states: "The pandemic has highlighted the recreational importance of forestry as the public increased their use of public forests and trails to be closer to nature".
I am sticking to the report strictly. It states that trees give us clean air, prevent flooding and mitigate water movements, prevent soil erosion, provide habitats and biodiversity and are a great public amenity for recreational use. I was totally on point with the committee's report and welcome its acknowledgement of those benefits. During lockdown we were all craving nature and we discovered pockets of trees we did not even know were there. We have significant mental health issues in this country and we cannot all afford to go to counselling, and there are issues with counselling services. It is amazing what native woodlands do for one's mental health. We have seen forest bathing and all the other things people go on about on Instagram. If one goes walking in a native woodland, one will come back a better person. That has a big part to play, especially in a climate emergency and a biodiversity emergency.
Thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for facilitating this debate. I acknowledge the presence of Deputy Cahill, whose excellent stewardship of the agriculture committee has brought us to this point. I compliment him on his hard work and welcome him to the Upper House. It is nice to be upgraded occasionally. I am glad Deputy Cahill is here. My contribution will be brief and I will not dwell too much on the report and its 12 points or recommendations.
There has been no cohesion in respect of afforestation. Historically, there has been severe neglect and underdevelopment in the sector. Apart from the environmental benefits of forestry and what the previous speaker said, which I must agree with, the reality in the plan is that we would have 8,000 ha and we are not halfway there.
There was mention earlier of the one-stop shop approach. I recently had a good discussion with a farmer in my constituency - if Senators could be said to have constituencies, mine would be Cork South-West - who planted about 60 acres of forestry many years ago. When I asked him what he would replant and what the issues were, he said first that there was no incentive. Second, he said there was no encouragement at Department level or any other level. He said the financial reward he had got for his 60 acres of plantation had been hard-earned and very slow in coming. This man is not getting any younger. He said he would have to see significant changes to entice him or perhaps his son to go back to afforestation. There has been mention of ash dieback, the spruce bark beetle, etc., but we must grasp the nettle. I know that the Minister of State is doing extremely good work, but afforestation does not happen overnight. There has to be planning, and the planning at this stage will not reap benefits until maybe a decade or 15 years down the road.
The other issues the farmer to whom I spoke mentioned to me related to licences and the various authorities involved. He said that at one stage when the trees were being harvested, cut and taken to the timber mill, the big logs on double-trailered lorries, the council and his neighbours were on to him about the damage to the road, so he said he was losing at every angle. There were neighbours falling out with him. If there was proper cohesion from day one, I think these issues would be resolved. As mentioned, a one-stop shop is necessary, and the sooner we embark on that the better.
This report is an essential step. I accept that the Minister of State's heart is in the right place. I accept that the Chairman of the committee, Deputy Cahill, has passion for and knowledge of all issues related to farming, and I welcome that. At departmental level and ministerial level, however, we must, without putting this too bluntly, pull out the finger and get to work. If we do not, the next generation will not thank us.
The Minister of State is welcome. I welcome also the committee Chair, Deputy Cahill. I thank him and all the members of the committee for their work and endeavours in the important area of forestry as part of the Oireachtas joint committee and for the publication of the report. I know that all committees are extremely busy. To have picked this subject shows the importance the committee feels it has and the role it plays in the area of climate mitigation and climate change endeavours. I also welcome the Minister of State's own commitment to forestry issues. I know that the past while has been a difficult period for forestry licensing and that she is getting to grips with that. There has been progress recently, but that is still a concern, and a certain amount of damage was done in respect of people planning for the future. That is regrettable, as is the issue of objections. No more than in other areas of Irish life, there are people who tend to object on a range of issues, unfortunately.
A number of years ago the issue of forestry was prevalent in my part of the woods. The issues were clear-felling, eutrophication and run-off. Thankfully, Coillte has changed its policies on clear-felling, and there has been a significant improvement in that regard. Previously, forestry, particularly coniferous forestry, was unfortunately given a bad reputation. I agree with other speakers about the importance of the forestry sector, in respect of both the commercial value of timber and the role it plays in job creation. In my area, the ECC plant in Cornamona, Connemara, employs so many people in the Galway-Mayo area. The native woodlands in particular are, as others have said, good for people's mental health and recreation. The enhancement and use of those through trails, picnic areas and viewing areas are greatly beneficial to society as a whole, and that can be encouraged.
Ash dieback is highlighted in the report. I remember being at a meeting of our parliamentary party when the late Minister, Shane McEntee, informed us of the issue of ash dieback being discovered here in Ireland. The impact ash dieback has had is visible in the beautiful ash trees across our countryside. We now see many of them raggledy and in some cases dying. I know that Teagasc and the Department are doing research work on providing more resilient ash trees, which would be very important.
The Minister of State has pushed forward the Mackinnon report. The committee has examined the report's recommendations and looked to see them implemented. It is important that reports that are initiated are actually put to use and the recommendations in them are put in place. I have said before that there is in some quarters a resistance to tree-planting among farmers, and we need to encourage people to change their mindset. To some farmers, planting an area of trees means they are nearly giving up on that area of land, and that is regrettable. I encourage people to go out and to plant trees with their children and their grandchildren to show a legacy for future generations. A lot of good work is being done on the recommendations. I hope the recommendations will be implemented.
I will hand over to Senator Burke.
Senator, you have more time if you wish. There is plenty of time.
I will hand over to Senator Burke.
I thank Senator Kyne for sharing his time with me on this very important topic. I welcome Deputy Cahill, the Chairman of the joint committee, to the House. While he seems very comfortable in his seat, I do not think he has any great ambition to come to this House other than in his capacity as Chairman of the joint committee. I also welcome Senator Hackett in her capacity as Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine with responsibility for forestry. This is a great report, and I compliment the committee on bringing it forward.
I have no doubt at all but that every single Member here has encountered great difficulties with people in the forestry industry. Whether they were planting or felling trees, and whatever end of the industry they were in, they have had huge problems over recent years, or at least the past year and a half or two years, with licensing, felling and planting. A great deal rests on Senator Hackett's shoulders as the Minister of State responsible for this sector, and I have no doubt at all but that she will make this a top priority.
This is a very big industry in Ireland. It is a great industry and has great potential. I wish to deal with recommendations Nos. 3, 4 and 5 on licensing, particularly the area of planning and the introduction of a single concept covering planting, road construction, management and felling. There is absolutely no reason that cannot be done together. Why should people have to apply for five different licences, such as a licence for felling, a licence for management and a licence for road construction? This should be part of the planning application and it should be simplified. It is great that this was highlighted in the report. We know of the large backlog of licence applications in recent months. It is hard to explain to the public or, indeed, those involved in the industry why there is such a backlog. There are various reasons for the backlog but it is mind-boggling, to say the least, that we have such a large backlog because it is not a huge industry as is the case in other countries. There is no great science involved in road construction or the felling of trees. I hope this will be streamlined and I have no doubt but that the Minister of State is on top of her game in regard to this aspect.
I believe the forestry industry should be more fluid. As many Senators have said, it is a long and drawn-out process. From planting to getting a return, it could take 30 years or whatever. If the process was more fluid whereby the trees could be sold or the forestry could be rented, it would add to the industry. If someone who planted a forest that is now five or ten years old needs money but does not want to sell the land, he or she should be able to sell the trees at that stage. There should be a mechanism to facilitate this. There could also be a mechanism in place whereby they could get a yearly income. The whole industry should be more fluid because a lot of money is involved in planting and growing, especially given the timeframe of 30 years for the forestry to mature. This is an area the Minister of State could look at. She should consider whether big financiers are required to come to the aid of the people in the industry. I hope that will be examined.
I wish to raise the issue of the timber being taken from the forestry. The people harvesting and transporting it should liaise more with the local authorities about the damage done to the roads infrastructure when removing the timber from the forestry, because some roads have been left in dire straits afterwards and nobody seems to be able to take responsibility for the damage. I know the situation is much better now than it had been. Another aspect of this relates to fencing. I have seen many cases of fencing which had been erected being bundled together and buried in the debris. I believe any fencing that is used and has to be taken down to facilitate the removal of the forestry should be taken away and not buried in the ground. There are obviously mechanisms for taking fencing away.
By way of a last point, I refer to ash dieback, which is a significant problem throughout the country. As we now know, the best advice is to cut it down and burn it. Assistance must be given to people in this regard. It is a matter I am sure the Minister of State is aware and on top of.
I welcome the report and I wish the Minister of State well with it. This report is a great basis on which she can work. She has the backing of the House and the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I congratulate the committee for the great work it has done.
I call Senator Conway. He has eight minutes.
I am sharing with Senator Carrigy.
There is plenty of time. If the Senator would like, he may extend his speech to eight minutes.
I probably will not require that amount of time, but I thank the Acting Chairperson for that.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. There have been problems with committees publishing reports and the reports being left on shelves. However, the Seanad debating and discussing reports is a new initiative. It has not often happened in previous terms in which I have served. I believe it is a good initiative and I commend the committee on the work it has done. This debate is very useful.
We know the importance of forestry. We know the challenges that the timber industry has faced recently. We know what impact forestry can have on the environment. We also know of examples where forestry has had a severe negative effect on the lives of communities and people. This does not happen all the time but it happens some of the time. We have a responsibility to ensure the structures that are in place going forward in terms of forestry achieve a number of things. First, they must encourage people to engage in the industry of planting and forestry. This is essential from an environmental and economic perspective. Realistically, there are many thousands of acres of land that are only suitable for forestry or wind farms, and we need both. It is an industry that has the potential for significant growth going forward.
Second, the timber industry employs thousands of people in this country but, unfortunately, we have been importing far too much timber in recent times in particular. We do not need to import the amount of timber we import into this country. We have the capability and the land to grow our own trees and provide our own timber. We need to engage and deal with that issue.
Third, we must respect the people who live in areas where forestry is grown. We do not have the right to remove somebody's view and darken a person's house by planting trees. I do not believe we have the right to do that. In addition, people who live in an area should not have the right to object to forestry for the sake of objecting to forestry. What we need is an appropriate licensing system that reflects the needs we clearly have for forestry from an environmental perspective and so on, respects people who live in forestry communities and, furthermore, ensures that people who live in these communities cannot prevent forestry from being planted for the sake of it.
The three principles I have put forward exist in planning. God knows planners do not always get it right, but at least the infrastructure is there. There is a system where people apply for planning. A person can make a submission within five weeks. If people are not satisfied, they can appeal it to An Bord Pleanála. That does not happen when it comes to forestry. I have never understood why it does not happen and it should happen. Perhaps it should not be a carbon copy of the planning application process but there should be more of a public consultation process involved.
There is also a serious problem in the matter of felling trees. We spoke about this before. Coillte is a company I do not have a problem naming. Coillte has been involved in a situation in my county, Clare, in which it has engaged in significant felling. It gets permission to do this. The lorries are overloaded with timber and the roads, which are mainly built on bog, are destroyed. Coillte makes its money, moves out and then the people living in the area have to navigate roads that destroy their cars and are, frankly, dangerous. I believe the licensing system should facilitate a survey of roads before a licence to fell trees is granted. I have spoken about this before. The local authority should carry out a study of the road, engage with the forestry company and outline the state of the road.
After the tree felling engagement has finished, there should be a survey done on the state of the road. The situation should then be dealt with because local authorities do not have endless budgets to fix roads that, quite frankly, have been destroyed by forestry. There are some cases where Coillte and others correctly checked and restored roads to their previous condition, but there are many examples where that does not happen.
When tree felling takes place over a number of years, as it does in certain parts of my constituency and elsewhere, there needs to be a road maintenance programme during that process. All of that could be ironed out through a survey by the local authority.. While local authorities are required to do that, they should be legally obliged to do so and there should be no excuse for not doing so. Good practice happens in 80% of the country and bad practice in 20%, but that is not good enough. There should be good practice in 100% of the country. When the 20% decide to engage in bad practice, the rigours of the law should deal with that and current and future licences should be revoked until such time as roads are restored to the condition they were in before the felling happened.
Overall, I want to be positive because I am a big supporter of tree planting. As I have said, it is essential from an environmental perspective. It is something we can do and should be doing. It has already provided a very meaningful livelihood for thousands of families in this country and can provide a meaningful livelihood to tens of thousands of families in the country.
I agree with Senator Burke that there should be a system whereby people can sell trees without selling land. We need to be a little bit more imaginative in the ways in which we can make it attractive for people to engage in planting trees because it is a long-term project over 20 or 30 years.
The job the Minister of State does is extremely important. We are delighted somebody from the Seanad is at the heart of Government and driving this agenda. It is to be hoped that over the next couple of years the Minister of State's agenda will grow and, when the Government's term is over, she will be able to say there was significant achievement in this particular area. It is a niche but extremely important area.
I again acknowledge the work of the joint committee and look forward to seeing the recommendations implemented. I also look forward to the common-sense recommendations and suggestions made here today being implemented and included in the programme.
The Minister of State is very welcome. I concur with the comments of Senator Garvey. We might be a small county in Longford, but we have always been to the fore in a lot of things and I was delighted to hear her mention Mr. John Crossan.
On tourism, two weekends ago I spent some time in Center Parcs Longford Forest. It was probably the best weekend break I have ever had and was just 20 minutes from my own doorstep. I thoroughly recommend it for those of us in political life to get away from the heat and get back to nature. It was very enjoyable.
I welcome the report and pay tribute to the Chair, Deputy Cahill, and all members of the committee. I hope the Minister of State will take on board the recommendations because they concern the long-term future of the industry. When I was elected to Seanad Éireann and we began sitting in July 2020, this was one of the first matters brought to my attention. Unfortunately, 18 months later, we still have issues.
Glennon Brothers Timber Limited, in my home county, is probably the biggest timber producer in the country. It recently purchased Balcas, which employs in the region of 300 people. It needs a supply of timber to ensure the sustainability of the business. The reality is we want to build 30,000 or more houses every year over the next ten years. We will need a sufficient supply of timber. The cost of timber has, according to reports, increased by between 45% and 50% over the past 12 months. There has been a significant increase in the number of timber-framed houses being built due to energy efficiency. We have to start hitting our targets and producing timber.
In 2020, 4,050 licences were issued, an increase of 56%, which is very welcome. We have set a target of 5,250. In January 2022, we still had 4,803 licence applications on hand, of which 64 were for afforestation, and 293 licences were issued. That is a good start, but it is not sufficient. The reality is that needs to be ramped up. If people feel they will not have a licence issued in a timely manner, many will move away from the thought of even planting forestry. That land is then lost forever.
As a Government, we have set a target of planting 8,000 ha of new forest every year. I ask the Minister of State to clarify a recent announcement. We set a target of 1,040 forestation licences to be approved this year. However, based on averages from previous years, that would only result in about 4,000 ha being planted. I ask the Minister of State to clarify whether I am wrong. We would be 4,000 ha short in that case, while I feel we should be setting higher targets for ourselves if we are going to have a sufficient supply into the future and not import timber.
I understand in the region of 450 licences for forests were issued to individuals and these have not been utilised. The total number of hectares associated with them is in the region of 4,000 ha of forestry that has not been planted, despite the fact people have been granted licences. Perhaps we should put a timeline in place within which people must plant forest after having been granted a licence.
I also agree with a recommendation in the report on the reality of the planning system. There are timescales set down in terms of the number of weeks involved when seeking planning permission for a house. We need to have a one-stop shop and roll all licences into one system to speed up supply.
I was on Longford County Council. When Coillte and other companies, in particular private companies, go to cut out forestry, they do not need to notify the local authority and the local roads engineer does not know what is happening. I know of a number of instances where I happened to hear by word of mouth that cutting was happening. A road was due to be resurfaced under the roads plan for the year, but the project had to be pulled because forestry was being cut out. There was no point in spending a significant amount of taxpayers' money resurfacing a road when it would have to be redone after the forestry had been cut out.
I would like a couple of answers on those queries, in particular licences that have been issued but have not been acted upon.
I thank my Seanad colleagues for the invitation to speak today. I also welcome Deputy Cahill to the Seanad. I very much welcome the detailed consideration that went into this report. I and my Department have had several engagements with the committee since the report's publication last March, and we have updated members on the steps being taken to address the recommendations made.
The most significant step in dealing with the challenges the forestry sector faces, as identified in the report, has been the establishment of Project Woodland, which was launched a year ago this month, using Ms Jo O’Hara’s report as a blueprint for the implementation of the Mackinnon report on forestry licences. Members of the joint committee recommended Ms O’Hara’s appointment, and her report is the basis for Project Woodland. The project has twin objectives. It aims first to improve the licensing system and deal with the backlog, and then to drive forward the planting of trees under a shared vision for forestry in Ireland.
It is important to say the entire project depends on active stakeholder involvement, and I have been impressed by the engagement of the approximately 25 members of the forestry policy group, selected from a range of stakeholders including industry, State agencies, environmental NGOs and community groups.
It really encompasses the whole breadth of those who are involved and concerned with forestry now and into the future. There are four working groups and each one will focus on a specific area. Most importantly, each of the four working groups is chaired by an independent person. All four report for a project board which is chaired by the Secretary General of the Department. There are three independent members, including Joe O'Hara, so there is independent oversight. We obviously need to involve the Department in that too because ultimately we will have to implement the findings. The project board has to date published three interim reports on the implementation of Project Woodland and continues to closely monitor progress.
As Members will appreciate, forestry stakeholders as I identified come from many different perspectives so there is no simple quick fix to the issues at hand. It is important we get everyone working together. Afforestation, well planned and executed, counts towards our climate change mitigation efforts, can enhance biodiversity, improve water quality, and provide recreational opportunity, as we have seen in recent times. As highlighted by Senator Kyne the forestry sector supports economic development and employment creation in rural areas in particular, and in our drive towards a carbon neutral economy provides alternatives for fossil fuel-based materials in construction and energy generation. Forestry has so much to offer and it is important that we realise its potential and promote its benefits. Underpinning all of this, of course, must be a well-functioning licensing system and much of our focus in the past year has been on improving licence output.
One of the common threads of today's debate has been about rebuilding confidence in land owners and in farmers to plant and to engage with forestry and see it as a viable land-use option for their farms. We achieved a good result in 2021. We issued more than 4,000 licences which was an increase of 50% on 2020. The committee recommended in its report that additional resources be allocated to deal with the backlog, and this increase in output is reflective of the additional resources we have put in place. We are keeping resource requirements under continuous review and further ecologists and forestry inspectors are being recruited.
Senator Carrigy will be glad to hear that there is no supply of timber into the sawmill sector, having dealt with the issues for the past 12 months, so that is a positive development. Alongside this, we have introduced new processes which have led to more efficient processing. There are concerns as well and Senators Conway and Lombard highlighted the concerns in regard to importation. At the end of the day we export 80% of sawn wood products from our country and more than 80% of panel products. We are a net exporter of timber. In regard to importation we have seen a significant reduction in past months in terms of importation from Scotland. That is to be welcomed and it came off the back of, I admit, a fairly lengthy period of higher imports than we would have liked. Hopefully that will set the course for the future.
Of course as part of Project Woodland an entire regulatory and process review is under way. We engaged a systems analyst to look at our business and IT systems and her recommendations are now being implemented. Senator Lombard alluded to such concerns so that is being implemented. A very extensive and comprehensive review of the legislative and regulatory licensing system is nearing completion, and I expect that it will be presented to the project board in the next week or so. This will address, among other things, the case for the introduction of a single consent system. Senator Burke and others have called for a single consent system. These calls have been heard but, to put it in context, forestry is a long-term project. Each of the pieces in that project can be significant land-use changes in its own right. That is why the system we have at the moment has been set up like that.
A number of Members also looked for an agreed timeframe in terms of the licensing process and for this to be enshrined in a customer charter. Again, this is our aim. We are waiting for the results of the processing legislative review which will help inform us, and help us make a decision, if we can indeed make that decision. It is worth noting that it takes in the region of about six months to get planning permission for a house. An afforestation site of 7 ha, which is the average area planted, would be a significantly more invasive aspect on our landscape than a house on maybe a quarter-acre site. To keep that in context, we do not have a really tight thing for housing planning, and I am not saying we should not have for forestry, but to keep a practical mind to it. Our average time at the moment is about ten or 11 months for a licence. It is too long. We are working to bring that back.
There is a sense from some that the rate of progress under Project Woodland has not been as quick as expected, but these are complex issues. There is no silver bullet. We need to spend the time now to get the issues resolved so that we have a worthwhile solution in the end. It is a very long-term project we are talking about, of some 20, 30 or 40 years and beyond, and we need to get it right. I hope that the recently published licensing plan for 2022 will inject some confidence into the system and will provide assurances to farmers and forest owners that we are dealing with the backlog. Under the plan we have committed to issuing 5,250 licences, with clear targets across Coillte felling, private felling, forest roads and afforestation. This target is a year-on-year increase of 30% and represents a 48% increase of private felling, roads and afforestation files. Coillte felling licences will be maintained at the levels they achieved in 2021. This is important because Coillte supplies 75% of product into our sawmills. I am aware that the committee is concerned, as we all are, with the decline in farmer participation in afforestation. This is a cause for concern, especially in light of our target of 8,000 ha of new planting per year, as contained in the climate action plan.
There are many factors that influence the decision to plant, and certainly improving licensing output has a role to play in building that confidence among farmers and landowners. That is why we intend to double the number of afforestation licences to more than 1,000 this year. It has been alluded to in the Chamber that the conversion rate from licensing to planting is at about 64%. This means we have a disproportionate amount of processing effort both by the Department and forestry companies which is essentially going to waste. We need to change that. We need to get much better at communicating the benefits of forestry to those who we are trying to encourage to plant trees. On most farms, planting can comfortably coexist with livestock enterprises and can significantly increase the net income from the holding. Farmers who plant trees on a portion of their lands can continue to engage in their traditional farm enterprises. They can also continue to receive their basic payments on planted lands. They will receive grants to cover establishment costs, generous tax-free premiums over 15 years and substantial tax-free income at thinning and harvesting times. We must work together to communicate this positive message.
Senator Carrigy asked about the 450 licence holders, which equates to about 4,000 ha, who have had a licence for six months or longer and have not planted yet. We will this week be writing to those applicants who have unused licences to remind them of the benefits of forestry and to encourage them to use their licence before it lapses. It is valid for three years. We will also ask them voluntarily why they are not using their licences. It is important to say at this point, the pressure from other land-use sectors has a significant part in this. Dairy expansion over the past eight to ten years has put pressure on land use in those areas where we might have liked to see more trees in the past. There are decisions for farmers to make all the time.
The quality of applications is a crucial factor in terms of a responsive licensing system. In three of our forestry districts, foresters can now contact the Department to have a pre-application discussion on afforestation applications. This is a pilot initiative under Project Woodland and we hope to roll it out nationwide in due course.
The committee highlighted the need to re-engage farmers and to have sufficient supports to encourage them to enter, re-enter and remain within the forestry programme. This is the last year of the current forestry programme so we are in the process of developing a new one for next year. Deputy Cahill asked whether in the years to come we will look back and ask what were we doing in 2022 to support the forestry sector. One significant aspect of this is the development of a new forest strategy for our country which aims to encompass a shared national vision for the future of forestry and trees in our environment, throughout our country.
The proposed vision statement focuses on having the right tree in the right place for the right reasons and the right management. I refer to supporting a sustainable and thriving economy and society and a healthy environment. The multifunctional aspect is ever more important. For the vision to be shared with everyone, we will require broad sectoral input and buy-in, and we hope to achieve this through extensive public consultation and bilateral engagement with stakeholders. We are going to be talking to youth groups, and we have already spoken to some of them. We are going to have a public consultation and a deliberative dialogue, a mini-citizens' assembly, on the future of forestry. We have also recruited Irish Rural Link to engage with rural communities, specifically those blacked out over the years because of poor decisions in the past.
A lot of work is ongoing and much remains to be done. The idea is to have this forest strategy in place before the end of the year and to also embark this year on designing our new forestry programme. The queries concerning how long we pay premiums for, if we can go back to a 20-year timeframe and if we can increase the amounts are all issues that need to be teased out. They come at a cost to the public purse, and any proposed increases must be justified. This is an exciting year for forestry and I reiterate the importance of getting it right.
The new programme will focus on the importance of climate-smart forestry and new afforestation will be encouraged in pursuit of economic, climate, water, biodiversity and recreational objectives. The recreational perspective was raised by several Members. Senators Garvey and Boyhan highlighted the importance of trees in respect of their recreational amenity value. My Department has a NeighbourWood scheme for local communities to avail of. I visited the one in Abbeyleix, which was the first one in Laois, several months ago. It is a 1.5-acre site close to the centre of Abbeyleix. It was a disused area and now in the years to come it will be a wonderful woodland for that community. That multifunctional aspect of forestry is incredibly important.
Later today, I will also be here for the Committee Stage of enabling legislation that will hopefully allow the small-scale planting of native trees, up to 1 ha, without the need for farmers and landowners to go through the onerous licensing system. This should appeal to certain landowners and it has the potential to increase the proportion of native broadleaf afforestation, while it will also account for afforestation levels in our carbon inventories at EU level. That can be a positive move.
Turning to another matter raised by some Senators, including Senator Paul Daly, namely, ash dieback, it is a concerning issue. The Senators might be glad to know that I will be submitting in the next couple of days a written report to the committee concerning ash dieback in Ireland and the lessons we have learned. I note that the committee supports research on the development of varieties of ash trees that will be resistant to this disease. Research is ongoing in this area through Teagasc, and our Department has funded such research initiatives. Details of the research will be contained in the report I mentioned.
Since 2013, there have been two ash dieback schemes and we have spent €7.6 million on them. The most recent scheme was set up in June 2020, just before I took up office. The scheme followed an extensive review of the previous ash dieback scheme. Under this new programme, we have received 520 new applications, representing more than 2,200 ha, under RUS. This year, we have committed to refocusing on approvals under that scheme. It has been outlined in our licensing plan for 2022 as well. The question of the grants paid under RUS is always a concern. The grants currently cover the full costs of clearing sites and replanting them with an alternative species. Perhaps we can discuss this in more detail following the receipt of the report.
The implementation of Project Woodland remains a priority for me and my Department. The project is set to address, in the main, the recommendations contained in the committee's report. While my Department must and will play its part, this is very much a shared endeavour. If all of us work together towards a common goal, we will realise the potential of forestry and trees in Ireland.
I do not think I have missed many outstanding points. I dealt with the independent review, and that has been highlighted a great deal.
Regarding Senator Hoey's question on hedgerows, what I had implied previously was not that we choose to not record them; rather, we are not able to do so yet. Work is under way between Teagasc and the Environmental Protection Agency in this regard. It is not under our Department's remit, but an effort to calculate and value hedgerows is under way. We might, hopefully, be able to measure it by the end of this year. The Senator's point, I think, was that if we were to measure this attribute, we would find that we are not in a great situation. She is right that we should not shy away from the actual situation as it stands.
Other than that, I thank the Senators again for their contributions. We must work together on this topic. We are making progress, but there is still much to do. We are certainly in a much better position now than we were this time last year or even last March. Let us build on that. I thank the House.
I thank the Minister of State for outlining the elements of the implementation of the report by the committee. I thank all the members of the committee for their work and for their contributions here today. I call the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Cahill.
I thank the Minister of State for her extensive reply. I will pick up on several issues, starting with ash dieback. I have been going on about this matter for a long time, perhaps even before I was the Chairman of this committee. Forestry is a farming activity. In my long experience in farming and in farming politics, this is the first time I have ever seen a response like this to a disease, and that is what ash dieback is, occurring on farms and that is completely outside farmers' control. The disease came from a biosecurity breach. If this were an outbreak of TB, foot and mouth, swine fever or whatever, there would be financial compensation for the farmers involved. A very valuable crop has been lost by a significant number of forestry plantation owners. Grants have been provided to help them to attempt to replant the land, and I fully acknowledge that aspect, but no attempt has been made to nullify some of the great financial losses suffered. Some of the plantations affected had 35 years of growth. There is a moral obligation on us as legislators to go some ways towards meeting the huge financial losses suffered by those plantation owners.
I fully accept that we have a strategy in this regard. When I referred to 25 or 35 years' time, I was talking about the lack of raw material that will be available then for our industry. Unfortunately, in recent years we have failed dismally to meet our targets for afforestation. The programme for Government refers to 8,000 ha in this regard. Stakeholders tell me that we would need applications to be submitted for 1,800 licences in 2022 and a conversion rate of 64% to allow us to meet that target. The average licence application is for 7 ha. Therefore, our targets for the issuing of afforestation licences in 2022 will fall significantly short. The figure targeted was 1,000 licences being issued, but there will be a significant shortfall in what would be required for us to meet our ambition of 8,000 ha. As was detailed earlier, achieving our objective is essential to combating climate change, reducing emissions, etc. This issue worries me.
That is the first target that it is essential for us to meet.
We all get the report each week on the dashboard. A target of 20 afforestation licences per week was set. That would be a significant improvement. It equates with the target of 1,000 per year. However, that is being fallen well short of in the first two months of the year. This week, there were only nine. Afforestation is a significant issue. I am worried. In summing up, I will consider what might be done to try to rekindle it.
I wish to raise an issue in the report that has not been addressed today, that is, the issue of unenclosed land. The committee heard there are three categories: enclosed improved land, unenclosed land and land not eligible for grant aid. The committee was informed that in the past large numbers of plantations were located on unenclosed land. They were used in the 1990s, when up to 40% of lands were unenclosed lands. A decision was made by the Department in 2010 to stop plantations on unenclosed land. The committee requested the Department to review this decision. As much land as possible needs to be utilised if Ireland is to meet its annual afforestation target. This was a national decision in 2010 to have a blanket ban on plantations on unenclosed land. There is also a blanket ban on afforestation on designated land. There is a growing opinion that different stages of afforestation on designated land is good for the creation of habitats for the species they are designed to protect, such as hen harriers, etc. I am not saying we should go out in the morning and plant 100% of unenclosed land or designated land but a significant volume of scientific research states that planting 5% every third year or fifth year and having different stages of afforestation growth on designated land and unenclosed land could have a serious beneficial impact on the habitats we are trying to protect. I ask the Minister of State to review that decision in respect of unenclosed land and to revert to the committee with that review to see whether the national decision made in 2010 is in the best interests of what we are trying to achieve.
To conclude, we are all on the same page; we want a successful forestry sector. We want to meet our afforestation targets. We want that to play a significant part in climate change, the reduction of emissions and the carbon sequestration it can deliver. I have two points to make to the Minister of State. I know she has a review going on. First, the schemes should be made financially attractive. Afforestation should be made an attractive form of land use. That is the first essential thing. It may involve increasing the premium per hectare. We have to revamp things and make forestry a financially attractive option for landowners once again.
Second, there should be a one-licence system. I ask her to take away bureaucracy from the licences. When one plants land, if it is a commercial crop, then, as surely as night follows day, that land will have to be clear-felled in 30 or 35 years. There is a need for a one-licence system or a one-stop shop to reduce the bureaucracy and take it out of the licence application process. If we concentrate on those two things, we will rekindle interest in forestry and will have a forestry sector that will deliver what we all want to achieve.