The Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, is very welcome to the Chamber for this important discussion on the forestry sector.
Forestry Sector: Statements
I am very grateful for the opportunity to come before the Seanad this evening. I am very thankful to be in the position I am in, especially now because of the difficulties we have in forestry. Following the recent storm we are in the unprecedented situation that there are 25,000 ha of trees on the ground. Before that happened, we had a very serious situation in forestry, in that not enough farmers were planting forestry. As there are competing schemes, what we in the Department need to do is make it more attractive.
There is a struggle between competing schemes and the fact is that there are other avenues of land use and people are worried about forestry. There is no point in trying to make this out to be any nicer than it is. Forestry got a bad name in recent years. One of the main reasons is that if you wanted to thin or clear fell your forest, or if you wanted a permit to make a road, you heard nightmare stories, which were factual, that it would take a year, two years or two and a half years. Nobody should have to wait that long for anything from any Department. That should not be the case.
I am very grateful and thankful to the officials in the Department and the people from the Department working on the ground every day. They are improving every day. They are going to be so good by the time this thing is finished that they are going to be frightening. People will no more have an application sent in when they will get a licence back. I do not want to be flippant about it because there is a serious side to it. There must be proper assessment and evaluation. You would evaluate an awful lot in a year, two years or two and a half years, so that type of nonsense will not be allowed to continue in the future. I stress that it absolutely will not. I want to give Senators confidence.
I very much appreciate the work Senators do. In coming here today, I would like to think that in their constituencies they would become very strong advocates for planting trees. We want to have a balance. We want to have native trees, through the agroforestry scheme, which I hope to improve. To be blunt, I do not agree with the terms of the scheme at present. They are not good enough. The scheme is not attractive enough. The first bit of advice I would give to a farmer who wants to plant agroforestry at the moment is to wait until we improve the scheme. I want it to be improved, and it will be improved. If Senators do not believe in what we are doing they will not have the confidence to tell people in their constituencies that they are convinced, so I want to convince them.
I accept that we have a lot of work to do. An awful lot of land is ineligible. I debate the science that says it is ineligible. My son Jackie and I spent a number of days recently walking ground with people who were very smart about their business. The one thing I have learned is that if you were up in the sky today above Ireland looking down at the forestry we have, you would be refused if you were looking to plant that ground under the present terms and conditions. The vast majority of the forests we have, both under the ownership of Coillte and privately owned, if you were looking to plant them today you would be told: "We are very sorry, you are not eligible." Where would that leave us?
We have an awful job of work. I am very grateful for people's work. The officials in the Department have bought into this. They want to turn this ship around, because if it does not turn around it will sink. The Government set a target of 800,000 ha a year. As Senators are aware, things have not been as bad with regard to planting since 1946. We must improve on that. If we fail during my time in this Department, I will have been a failure, forestry will be a failure and it will do untold damage to us in emissions and the fines we will have to pay in the future. Every one of us - be it Senators, TDs, Ministers, or councillors at home in the constituencies - want to see people having confidence in planting trees again. In doing that, we in the Department have to up our game. It is our responsibility to make it more attractive. It is my fault if it is not got right. I am very invested in improving it.
As Senators will be dealing with people who have questions for them, I will go through a couple of headline points about the storm, some of which they may know already. There are 25,000 ha of forestry on the ground. They should not think that is a disaster. It is not as though the product is gone. The majority of it is windblown but it is still connected to the ground. It is not losing weight. Members should always remember that the best place to store timber is inside a wood when it is connected to the ground. That is the best place to keep it. Approximately 14,000 ha of that is owned by Coillte and the rest of it is private.
The one thing I wanted to do at the very beginning was ensure people would be safe. A couple of very bad things have happened by people going at work themselves. Indeed, in my county we had an awful incident recently involving a chainsaw. The first thing I would say to people is that whatever about timber or their forestry or anything, they should be safe about what work they are doing. Get the proper assessment, get the proper foresters to come in, get the proper advice and get in the contractors when the time is right.
I have been visiting the sawmills. I have every confidence in our sawmills. Some people might have this impression that there is a lot of timber on the ground, so the sawmills are going to blackguard it and drag down the price. I would not agree with that. They are not going to do that. I am very proud of the sawmills we have in Ireland because I see the massive amount of money they have expended - hundreds of millions of euro creating jobs at home, turning a raw product into a multitude of uses to the highest of standards and exporting across to England and up to the North. It is great to see it. It is great to see our natural resource being turned into fine products that are up to the highest of standards. We have a job of work to do, including the haulage people and the contractors who will actually harvest this timber and bring it out. However, we only want to it to be brought out as it is ready to go to the sawmills because we do not want it to be losing weight and losing income for the farmers who own it.
It is very upsetting, of course, especially for an older person who goes out to see his or her lovely forest flattened to the ground, and it looks awful, and that person thinks it is a disaster. It is not, really, because it is still connected to the ground in the majority of cases and it is not really losing value, and those people will be taken care of by their forester and the contractors that will come along. It might look bad and it might seem bad, but they still have a valuable crop, especially if it is of a certain age, if it is over 25, 26 and 27 years. Yes, of course, I will not deny that if it is younger forestry, if it is 15 or 16 years old, they do not have the weight on the timber and if that timber is knocked, yes, of course, that is difficult.
One thing Senators will be asked, and I want them to know, is that there is going to be a reconstitution scheme. It is not there at present because we needed to be sure of all the analysis of the data before we could actually announce it. We cannot say what we will compensate unless we know the scale of the problem first. Therefore, people will ask what will happen when they take out their timber now and whether they will miss out on a grant to plant again. No, they will not. They are perfectly entitled to take out their timber and, yes, they can retrospectively apply for the reconstitution scheme when it will be in place, and it will be in place. I just hope we will be able to put together the money to make it strong enough to take the harm out of having to replant. Senators might ask why people would need the replanting grant now at a time when they would not get it otherwise. Quite simply, it is because of what I just said about how some of the timber might not be heavy enough, and if people are getting a cheque in the hand from the sawmills for their timber, they do not want to have to be spending too much of it replanting to get themselves back to where they were in the first instance.
The ash dieback, of course, has been a big issue. The reconstitution scheme continues. Those affected can avail of the climate action payment. To date, almost €3.56 million has been paid out on that. I have been visiting situations on the ground. One thing we have heard an awful lot about are the ESB outages. I know that is of great importance to all Senators because many of them have seen the trouble this has caused in the constituencies they are from. People like the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, are doing excellent work to ensure the corridors that need to be provided will be provided. We need to ensure the landowners will be consulted and compensated if at all possible. We just have to try to get that job of work done.
I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber today. I am really enthusiastic about his enthusiasm, and I can vouch for it. I am a veteran of the previous two agriculture committees. I am the only one who sat on the previous agriculture committee with the licensing issues, in particular, that were ongoing.
If there were a league table for topics discussed by the agriculture committee, forestry would have topped that league hands down. Although he was not on the committee, the Minister of State used to frequent most of those meetings as a non-member. I am delighted to be able to report to anyone who was not watching those meetings that his attitude and approach has not changed now that he has been elevated to the position of Minister of State. I am enthusiastic about that enthusiasm, if that makes sense.
This is vitally important, and I have scribbled notes the Minister of State can verify, but a word I have highlighted at the top and which he mentioned five times is "confidence". The Minister of State's biggest job of work at the outset of his new role is to reinstil confidence in the sector and the people on the ground - the farmers, landowners and people in the private sector whom we want to bring with us on this journey and who we want to plant trees so that we can meet our targets. I do not like being critical. I am solution driven. I am not going to rehash all the problems, but there were problems, as the Minister of State rightly said. People's confidence in the sector was shattered and still is to an extent. The Minister of State's first and biggest job is to get people's confidence back, and if he can get confidence back in the sector, he will be halfway to square one because he has a big body of work to do. I am not being critical in any way of anyone who went before him, but he has a big body of work to do to get to square one. That is a big ask of any one man, but I know and have confidence that he will do that. I welcome his attitude towards it.
Something might have to sell to get the confidence back. There is always a debate, and it ends up coming down to emissions and climate targets. One would think the only thing a tree did was sequester carbon. Trees are a major part of good biodiversity. Forests and woods play a major role in our tourism industry. Timber is an unbelievable asset in our building trade. The last three never get mentioned, however. It is always about sequestration. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister of State about where we can and cannot plant trees. The buzz phrase the last time was the right tree in the right place for the right reasons with the right management. I would agree with the Minister of State that maybe we were not putting the right trees in the right place. If we are to get the private sector and the farmers back confident and enthusiastic, we have to open up some of what I would call poorer quality land. We had €1.3 billion invested the last time in the forestry programme. It had to go to Europe to be approved for state aid. However, not only did it come back approved for state aid, it also came back with a list of environmental small print about peaty land and how we could not go to X, Y and Z - the Minister of State knows them. Like him, I would question that. It is an area that needs to be revisited. If we cannot open up all our land for forestry, we are not going to meet our targets.
On the targets and the 8,000 ha, last year it was 1,600 ha. We are getting closer to what might be achieved this year with the returns on the year to date so far. However, when we are coming in at 1,600 ha when it is meant to be 8,000 ha, how are we going to balance that book at the end of the day? For our climate targets, we have in one column 8,000 ha of forestry that is balancing something that is emitting in the other column. If we do not have the 8,000, which we are not going to have, how are we going to reduce the emissions column? Who is going to suffer down the line? Do we need to be looking at that at this stage? There are questions that need to be asked.
I do not know if the Minister of State said it today, but it is in documentation I have read, that there are 6,000 ha that are ready to go. Will they be planted? There is a lack of confidence because of what has gone on - the shenanigans that have happened, for want of a better word - over the past four, eight and ten years. People who applied for licences three, four or five years ago only got them last year or at the beginning of this year or whenever. Have they moved on? Has anybody done a survey as to whether the 6,000 ha that are ready to go and that are licensed will be planted, or is that just another figure we are using to balance an equation that may not be a realistic one?
I read a couple of weeks ago in The Journal that the EPA has now said there could be anything up to a 7% reduction in agricultural emissions based on the figures. It was using a standard European or worldwide figure, but when it gets to more Ireland-specific figures, it has actually admitted that what we have been calculating or using as our emissions could be at least 7% less. How will that affect our sums going forward?
Let me mention the few things the Minister of State specifically mentioned. With regard to the storm, I welcome the fact that he set up the windblow task force immediately. I agree we can take positives out of this. It is not the end of the world and not a matter of negatives, but I have a few questions about replanting. I saw a forest whose condition was hard to believe in that, while the outside trees were all still standing, those in the centre were all down, showing how nature is an amazing thing. If there is to be removal and you make a roadway to replant the trees, will saplings survive in a mature forest environment, which may be the habitat of larger animals, which may have different biodiversity and where life may not get through to the extent expected? It may not just be as simple as taking out one tree and putting in another. Maybe the farmers and growers will need a little research and help on this one. The matter may not be straightforward for the reasons I have given, including the environment, large animals, different biodiversity and the lack of sunlight. We may need to put a bit of thought into this going forward.
The Minister of State can come back to me on some of these points and does not have to answer today. One of the last initiatives we dealt with at the last agriculture committee considering forestry was the additional support provided under the reconstitution and underplanting scheme, RUS, for ash dieback. I remember there was divided opinion as to whether what was on offer – the €5,000 CAP payment the Minister of State mentioned and the additional money for clearing sites – would be enough. The Dáil came to an end and we did not have any more meetings, so the Minister of State might update us on the feedback on the additional supports.
When we mention dieback, we have to mention biosecurity and the bark beetle. If we have learned anything from the ash dieback scenario, it is that we need to keep out foreign diseases. With the storm damage and repair work, there is a lot of talk about machines coming in from Europe and elsewhere. We need to be extra vigilant about biosecurity and biodiversity. We have to keep the bark beetle out at all costs.
As I said about land, there is an argument made that when peaty soil is disturbed when sowing trees, it releases a certain amount of carbon and that this amount may not be weighed against the sequestration of the tree. When people are doing the sums, do they take into consideration the biodiversity and other benefits of the tree? Do they take into the equation the displacement of concrete by timber at the point of end use? Considering all these advantages of a tree, maybe a little carbon loss at planting might not be bad at all. If we opened up a lot more land that is not now eligible, as the Minister of State said, we would get back the confidence of the farmers and reach the required acreage.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I welcome his officials.
This is an area in which I have a developing interest because I am involved in helping a loved one with a forestry application. In that regard, I thank people for the support I have got. In making inquiries, I was very grateful for the assistance received from the Department. I acknowledge Mr. Delaney in this regard and also the Minister of State.
As is often the case when you are more directly involved with a matter, you come to realise the many issues people face. I have had occasion to speak to people in forestry. I thought I would take this opportunity today to put on record some of the concerns I am hearing. I realise the Minister of State is not hearing about them for the first time. Indeed, they are concerns he will be very well aware of. I have heard him speak eloquently about some of the issues. I am speaking now particularly about the world as seen through the lens of people involved in forestry and forestry professionals, who talk genuinely about the bureaucracy. One person said his pet hate is that when dealing with the Department, it is not always the same person who deals with his queries, meaning that each time he has a subsequent query, he must start afresh with a new person, who may have to rehearse or become familiar with the issues all over again.
When it comes to the administration of bureaucracy in the best sense, there are decisions that have to be made on how tasks and work are apportioned, but can more be done so officials will have what some professionals would describe as a little more ownership of particular applications, be they for felling, roads or afforestation, the result being that those in forestry would deal with the same person constantly when going through the various phases of inquiry?
It has also been pointed out to me that some inspectors could be more amenable to landowners or could work with people more, perhaps on preplanning consultations and talking to people in this regard. This is an area that the Minister of State has addressed at Talking Timber and so on. An example given to me was of somebody putting in an agroforestry application and who needed an assessment. It had to do with the hen harrier. The farmer had to pay €1,000 for an ecologist’s report but then, when the ecologist gave the green light, the farmer failed the assessment because of soil type. Such farmers are left wondering whether they could not have been asked to obtain the ecology report only when it was established that there were no other grounds to fail anyway. When something like what I have described happens, it leaves the person feeling their money and time have been wasted unfairly. The situation is such that the person does not get a refusal but maybe an invitation to plant an alternative type of tree, leaving him or her feeling the whole application is being kept in limbo.
Another example given to me of an issue that causes frustration concerns where a farmer is told, in respect of a particular project, the county council requires a planning application to be made, whereas the professional involved knows or finds rightly that the council does not want to deal with the issue at all. The professional, as predicted, will say they do not want to deal with the issue at a planning level and urge applying for an exemption, but the farmer might not be able to go for an exemption because he or she will have been told by the inspector that a planning application is required. These are the day-to-day frustrations that arise. In some cases, there can be a very good reason. We all tend to see these things from our personal point of view when dealing with them but it may be that, in each and every case, there is a reason. However, it is fair to say that there is a sense on occasion that there is not the flexibility or sense of practicality needed to help things to progress.
We are at a point where the expected timeline for an assessment for afforestation is six months, or nine months if there is an ecological aspect. I believe I am correct in saying the latter. Some of my correspondents asked how it will be possible for the State to plant its target of 12,000 ha per year if it is to take six or nine months to get approval. I am not saying there is not another side to these questions but it is important that they be tabled. The way it was put to me concerned our talk about ensuring greater speed in the handling of applications for asylum and getting the period down to three months. It was stated that if we can manage something that concerns people’s lives in three months, surely an application connected to forestry, being something of a less weighty matter, can be addressed with even more dispatch. As I implied, I am very open to hearing the other side of the arguments.
There is also a perception concerning broadleaves. The position is right and proper and the schemes now encourage the growing of broadleaves. Obviously, we have to note the colossal damage done by Storm Éowyn. The view that is quite widespread is that the premiums are simply not enough to get going the kind of forestry business required, given the value of land and indeed the demand for it, not least because of the nitrates arrangements.
The question being asked is in the context of ash dieback, where the vast majority of broadleaves were ash and there has been a huge decline in broadleaves in the overall volume of native woodland. A lot of that ash will go into Sitka spruce in second rotation. In some areas, land could be up to €20,000 an acre. We know an ash forest may be worth €2,000 an acre. One farmer said in the context of what people do around the second rotation that if there is no premium, farmers would be better off grazing goats.
Could a more targeted approach be taken into the future? Perhaps there could be higher premiums where the State wants particular things done and has particular types of forestry it wants to achieve such as, for example, in sensitive areas. Perhaps premiums could be run over a longer term and a lower premium provided in areas where farmers could plant whatever they want. These are the kind of issues that have been raised with me. As I said, I wanted to put them on the record today and to hear the response of the Minister of State if possible, in what is admittedly a limited amount of time available to him.
I wish to acknowledge, in the context of the recent storm devastation, the fact that many people were left without power for a long time. Great efforts have been made in that regard, but I had to raise in the Seanad in recent weeks the fact that some people were without power for an unacceptable amount of time. I also want to note the good work being done by Teagasc in its ongoing support for forest owners impacted by storm damage. That is my summary of the issues I want to raise with the Minister of State today. I do not intend to use all of my time. I will leave it at that. I will be very grateful to hear his response.
The Minister of State is very welcome to the House. I am delighted to see him as Minister of State in charge of the sector at this moment in time. Coming from a rural area, he understands at first hand the suffering and pain the recent storm caused to rural communities, private landowners and forestry in general. I compliment him on meeting people in County Cork recently and engaging with a number of stakeholders in the forestry sector. I believe he has engaged with many personally, on which I compliment him.
I am sure everybody is aware of the following facts. As of 2022, an estimated 800,000 ha, or 11.6% of Ireland, was covered in forestry, compared to an average of 39% in Europe. Almost half of our forestry is in public ownership, mainly Coillte. Nearly one-third is made up of broadleaf, according to statistics from the Department. In terms of afforestation rates over the past three years, 1,652 ha were planted in 2023, which is a decline. Some 1,573 ha were planted in 2024. As of this year, 691 ha have been planted. This sends out a message that what is happening at this moment in time is not working.
People are fearful of planting trees. The Minister of State understands where this fear comes from. When trees are planted in rural areas, communities are decimated. The small shop and school are decimated. There was a campaign in Leitrim a number of years ago, Save Leitrim, and there were objections to planting in Leitrim because of the marginal land that it is. Unfortunately, that became the norm and spread throughout the whole of Ireland. This is a sector that needs to grow. The only way it can grow is by putting money in place to make sure it is viable for people to see a profit by the end of the year, whether a pension scheme, privately owned business or whatever else.
Let us be very clear in this House. Everybody is talking about climate change, our targets and what we have to meet. Our carbon credits are valuable, not only to the State but to farmers. If farmers are compensated for carbon credits, then and only then will we meet our targets. Let us be quite clear on that. If we compensate a farmer in the correct manner for soaking up our carbon credits for us, then and only then will people invest in our forests. That will create jobs and everything else.
There are 22,000 private forest owners in this country. Approximately 1,800 are affected by windblow at this point in time. Most of the affected areas are Sligo, Leitrim, my county of Longford, Cavan, north Meath, Roscommon and Galway because they are areas of marginal land. That is why they were planted over the past number of years. Unfortunately, we have seen the effect of that decision with the windblow.
Some 26,000 ha of land have windblow. I stand to be corrected but I believe there are about 2.4 or 2.5 years' worth of forest on that ground. I have grave concerns. Our sawmills are capable of dealing with this and I agree with the Minister of State that the best place for our timber at this moment in time is on the ground. Unfortunately, farmers are panicking because they feel they are losing a percentage of the timber by weight.
Ireland has 11% forestry cover at the moment. The national target is to reach 18% by 2050. This means planting 8,000 ha per year. We are currently struggling to plant 2,000 ha per year. We need clarification on peaty rich and mineral rich soils. The new CAP reform from Europe states that those with peaty rich land will not be allowed to plant. As we know, a lot of regions I have mentioned have peaty rich soil. It has grown timber very successfully in the past. Trees such as Sitka spruce have been grown in the soil. There is no reason why such trees cannot grow again. We need a package to be put in place in order that the soil can be replanted.
If there is a thinning licence at this point in time, does that mean the land can be clear-felled? I need that question answered. Any standing timber under a clear-fell licence should not need to be cut at this moment in time, and I urge the Minister of State to address that point. If it is standing, it is growing in value every day of the week. The task force needs to provide clear information. We have drone footage from all over Ireland and know every forest that is standing at this moment in time, as well as forests with windblow. If a forest is standing and has a licence, there is no need to cut it down because it is growing in value day by day. We need to deal with what is on the ground first before we start taking down stuff that does not have windblow.
I refer to the Minister of State's commitment to the reconstruction scheme. He may not be able to answer this question today but does that refer to replanting for stuff that has windblow for a period of up to 15 or 20 years? Will it deal with all affected planting, including mature areas with windblow? Is there a percentage involved? If, for example, there is 20% windblow damage on a mature forest will the farmer receive a full package of replanting? Will somebody who has a planting that is 15 years old with 30% windblow, all of which has to be removed, get the full package?
Will there be percentages in the reconstruction scheme relating to the number of years the planting has already grown? That is important because some plantings have not matured but are out of the scheme and will be cleared. Other plantings have a higher monetary value and can go for sawlog and so on. Most farmers will pay higher percentages on sawlog. Will the scheme balance out that growth year on year?
The biggest bugbear is that the mills in this country control the price of timber. I am sure as a result of the Minister of State's dialogue with the mills they will hold the price of timber to a moderate value and that it will not decrease. The method for calculating the purchase price of timber all over Europe is by weight. Timber loses approximately 5% on the forestry floor on a monthly basis. Every other mill in Europe purchases timber by volume. After timber is purchased by a mill, by weight, it is sold by volume at the other end. If one harvests timber in Europe the weight of timber goes on the head of the harvester so everybody knows the value of the timber as it is cut by the harvester. In this country, timber is paid per weight on the way into the mills. Clarification on this matter would alleviate the issue. Farmers would not panic because their timber could stay in the forest because it will be paid on the harvest head of the forestry. This is very important and people might not get this. If farmers are paid on the head of the harvester they will not panic and the timber will stay in the forest. This is something I came up with. A perfect example of permanent deals is the fact Coillte, a semi-State body, sells timber by volume, not weight, whereas a private owner sells timber by weight only. This means any delay in the movement of timber from woodland to the sawmill will incur a financial loss to a private owner.
Before I finish, in regard to the ash dieback problem, the question of whether there will be a compensation package for local authorities to deal with some of the ash dieback along roads has not been clarified with them. I hope some of my colleagues will speak about the ESB and maintaining power lines. I thank the Minister of State for his time and look forward to his response.
I thank the Senator. The next slot is for Sinn Féin. Senator Collins is sharing time with Senator Tully. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister of State. Forestry should be a key part of Ireland's response to climate change, supporting rural communities and protecting biodiversity. However, the reality for many forest owners is one of delay, financial loss and frustration. One major ongoing issue is ash dieback. Although the Department has the reconstitution scheme for plantation owners, there is no financial support for farmers and landowners with ash dieback on their hedgerows. Dead and dying trees along public roads are serious health and safety hazards, as we saw during Storm Éowyn when the roads were blocked for days and power lines were brought down, leaving homes without electricity for weeks. Sinn Féin is calling for a specific grant scheme to assist farm owners and landowners in safely removing trees before further storms cause even more damage and disruption.
This is only one part of the wider crisis. Storms Éowyn and Darragh caused devastating damage across the forestry sector with an estimated 26,000 ha affected, most of which now needs to be urgently felled. The Minister's task force is apparently drafting an action plan but forest owners need immediate practical support and not more reports. We cannot allow valuable timber to lie and rot on the ground while the forest owners have to shoulder the loss.
Another problem arising from the storms is the destruction of private property adjoining forestry, such as boundary fences, sheds and gardens. There needs to be a clear and fair scheme in place to provide support for these landowners who have suffered damage through no fault of their own. A major factor in the length of time it took to restore power after these storms was the difficulty in accessing the lines through the forestry. The corridors and setbacks around critical infrastructure such as electricity, communications and the water networks are too narrow and poorly maintained. Sinn Féin will call for the Department of agriculture and the ESB to work together to widen and maintain these corridors properly to protect essential services from storm damage.
I will also highlight the huge challenges farmers face when trying to manage their forests. Over the summer recess I met a group of forest owners in west Limerick. One of the landowners explained how he noticed ash dieback affecting his forest in 2020. He applied for his felling licence. He had a buyer lined up to buy the ash trees to make hurleys and any timber left over would go into furniture. By the time he received his felling licence in 2023 the dieback had affected every single tree in his forest so he was out of pocket by €50,000, on average. There is no grant that will cover that loss. Now, if he is to fell the entire forest when heeventually gets a contractor - the majority of contractors are taken up with forestry at the moment - he will have to get an ecological report. I assume that report would have been done when he originally received the grant to plant the trees so he will now have to pay another €2,000 to get the same report done to take away the trees. A few things just do not make sense in this. Years of investment will be lost with no proper support to replant or recover from this. This is not a unique experience; it is widespread across the country. The licensing system is too slow and bureaucratic. It is driving people away from forestry exactly when we need them.
Looking ahead, I want to raise an important issue about the GAEC 2 standard under the new CAP. Some 30% of Ireland's peatlands are under forestry, mainly monoculture Sitka spruce plantations. Research shows planting on drained peatlands actually releases more carbon than it stores. The process of draining, planting, harvesting and replanting peatlands is contributing to carbon emissions, not reducing them. Afforestation on peatlands must stop. We must develop a plan to restore existing forestry peatlands back to natural boglands to serve as a true carbon sink.
I will turn to the carbon credits, which I heard my colleagues speak about, and the ownership of carbon credits stored in Ireland's forests. For more than 30 years, Irish farmers have invested their time, land and money in planting forests, often encouraged by State policy. Who owns the carbon credits linked to those forests? Will farmers and forest owners have rights to the carbon credits of their forests or will these be captured by others? Looking forward to the EU emissions trading system in 2030, will forest owners receive carbon credits for existing forests they planted over the past decades or will the benefits only apply to new plantations?
One of the serious risks is posed by bark beetles. The eight-toothed spruce bark beetle poses a devastating risk to the forestry sector. If the Government fails to ban the importation of affected timber and forests are wiped out, will owners be fully compensated? What risk assessment has been carried out? What is the estimated cost to the sector if infestation takes hold? Crucially, why was it the Scottish Government that halted timber exports to Ireland when the larch beetle spread, and not our own Government and Department of agriculture being proactive? Given past failures, what specific steps is the Department now taking to prevent the importation of any other dangerous beetle into Ireland? Forestry owners have invested in good faith. They deserve action, fairness and real support from the Government, not empty words.
The percentage of land that is under afforestation in Ireland compared with the EU average has already been mentioned. Ireland is way below where it should be, at below 12% when the average is 39%. We know how important afforestation is as part of the solution to climate change and in addressing carbon emissions. The previous programme for Government set a target of 8,000 ha per year to be afforested. We fell way below that, with not even a quarter of the target reached. This means we are playing catch-up on those targets because the targets set for 2030 and 2050 were dependent on reaching the targets set in the years from 2021 onwards. We need a robust plan that sets targets we will actually achieve to allow Ireland to catch up and ensure we will not be fined by Europe because we are not reaching our targets. We are in danger of being fined if we do not have a robust plan in place.
I want to talk about afforestation in west Cavan and Leitrim. A lot of that is hill land and peatland. I agree with my colleague who said we should not be planting on peatland and I disagree with others who said we should. Peatland that has forest on it needs to be returned to peatland because we are losing more carbon than we are saving.
As the Minister of State mentioned in his opening speech, there is resentment and mistrust among farmers about afforestation because they have seen the concentration of forests being put on land where there was no benefit to the local farmer or to the local community. We need a plan that works for everyone and for the environment. It needs to be regionally balanced; it should not all be concentrated in one or two counties. It also needs to be balanced in terms of species. We must maintain a robust timber industry but we also need forever forests that are full of our natural woodland and allow those to mature.
The recent devastation caused by storms Éowyn and Darragh, particularly in west Cavan and Leitrim, was dreadful. It took the ESB crews weeks to get through the forests to repair the power lines. We need to see the Department of agriculture and the ESB working together to plan and ensure there is a corridor maintained either side of lines that is wide enough to ensure that, if a tree falls, it will not bring down the line and cut electricity for weeks, causing a lot of hardship for people. We need to ensure our electricity, communications and water networks are protected from storm damage. The 26,000 ha of forestry that was damaged during the storm needs to be clear-felled and extracted as soon as possible before it becomes worthless. The Minister of State said there is a plan in place or that one is going to be enacted very soon. We need to see that sooner rather than later. There are also issues for farmers with land adjoining forested land. They encountered damage where trees fell on building and fences and so forth. They need to be compensated and included in any action plan.
I want to talk about investment companies and some of the larger farming enterprises buying forestry. Especially in Cavan and Leitrim, they are outbidding the local farmers and then they are not there to take responsibility when something goes wrong such as the damage from Storm Éowyn. Communities feel abandoned and that they are left to clean up the mess. Something should be done to make it a fairer system so that enterprises cannot come in from a different part of the country or from a different part of the world outside of the country and buy up what they deem poor land to offset their emissions while not thinking about the local community or local farmers.
Before I call Senator Noonan, I welcome Teresa Murphy, a sister of Senator P. J. Murphy, to the Chamber. As we all know in this Chamber, you cannot get elected without the support of your family, so I hope the Senator is looking after you today.
I also welcome Teresa to the Chamber.
I welcome the Minister of State to this important debate. I never had the formal opportunity to wish him the best in his tenure as Minister of State. I know he will hit the ground running. Any time I have had the duty to call him on issues, he picked up the phone straight away and dealt with the issue. I do appreciate that. I know he has a busy portfolio.
I am going to raise a couple of points and questions. A number of Members mentioned peat slides. One of the first tasks I had as Minister of State was to travel to Drumkeeran in County Leitrim in 2020 when the bog slide took place at Shass Mountain. Watching 25-year-old Sitka spruce, which look like Christmas trees, sliding down the mountain showed me we had really a serious problem with forestry in Ireland. We saw trees of that age that had no number-value whatsoever sliding down the mountain in a bog slide event. It stressed the urgent need to reform our forestry policy.
My colleague and former Member of this House, Pippa Hackett went a long way with the forestry strategy and I hope the Minister of State will continue that trajectory. It shows the scale of the challenges we had. The really significant challenge is that a very limited amount of land in this country is suitable for commercial forestry. That is something that is being borne out in the land use review.
Between storms Darragh and Éowyn we lost 26,000 ha of forestry that was flattened. Of that, 14,500 ha was on Coillte estate and 11,500 ha was private. I welcome the Minister of State's commitment to the windblown forestry reconstitution scheme and to looking at the markets for windblown timber.
Looking at the report of the Climate Change Advisory Council, I ask that we get certainty on the LULUCF targets as they relate to windblown timber. Are they going to be credited to Ireland? I understand we are going to fall short on targets in many sectors. Perhaps LULUCF may come very close to meeting our targets under existing strategies. Is the LULUCF target for windblown timber going to be accounted for positively in terms of our sectoral emissions? I do not expect the Minister of State to answer that today but it is important because it could be an added benefit to the State from what was an awful national tragedy.
I welcome the Minister of State's commitment to agroforestry It is an important sector and perhaps even more so as we look towards reductions in the herd. There are opportunities there for landowners. I welcome the new MSc programme in agroforestry set up by the National Organic Training Skillnet. There is huge potential in this area. I welcome the Minister of State's comments on this in his opening remarks. There is potential around collective land use practices, combining trees with crops and animals. That could deliver significant ecological and economic interactions between trees and agricultural components as well as co-benefits to climate, nature and water. I welcome the Minister of State's commitment in that regard.
The potential that exists to expand our native woodlands for delivering co-benefits in terms of flood mitigation, climate and nature, and water quality is critically important. Those schemes could be of huge benefit not only to the country but also to landowners who have pockets of native woodland on their land who could look at expanding those over the next number of years.
I have raised on a number of occasions in the House Coillte's regrettable decision to abolish or get rid of its not-for-profit division, Coillte Nature. I have read numerous reports, most recently the Coillte Forest Estate Strategic Land Use Plan 2023 to 2050, in which Coillte Nature is given a specific role in nature restoration in its work, the Dublin Mountains makeover being an example. We are embarking on a nature restoration plan, so why was this decision made? The senior Minister, Deputy Heydon, basically said there was nothing to see here, that Coillte would embed its work on biodiversity into its main strategic operations. I do not see how that is possible. Coillte Nature was doing very valuable work. It won an award in the RDS a few weeks ago for its work. It is a regressive decision by Coillte. I ask the Minister of State to take that up with Coillte in future meetings. Some of the work the National Parks and Wildlife Service has done, such as on hen harrier welfare, co-management of sites, looking at co-designing and redesigning sites for nature, and removing forest in areas where there is a nature benefit, is something that could still be developed but it needed that dedicated Coillte Nature division to carry out that work. I ask the Minister of State to give consideration to that.
The issue of biosecurity was referred to by a number of Members. I stress the importance of local nurseries for indigenous planting of native trees and native stock. I did some contracting work for Coillte many years ago, harvesting native tree seeds, from ash, spindle and other species, around the country. It was most enjoyable going out in the autumn to harvest seeds and bringing them to Coillte to have them brought on. Part of our solution in biosecurity should involve our indigenous stock and local provenance. That is something we should look at in ash dieback and some of the research being done, particularly in the UK, where they are leaving standing ash trees in local areas to see if there is a resilience to ash dieback. We should give consideration to this here. It is our native tree and it is hugely valuable from a cultural and biodiversity perspective. Those of us from hurling counties appreciate its value more than anyone. We should look more towards research. I think there is hope for ash trees. We should put more into research to try to manage the problem.
Regarding the point that was made about cutting down roadside trees, it should be about resourcing local authorities to better manage roadside trees. That could be about doing assessments about pruning and reducing them rather than removing them completely. I see widespread removal of trees from the countryside. I mention this in terms of research on fire blight as well.
I welcome the work that is being done. I urge the Minister of State to visit the fantastic team at Hometree, who have done fantastic work on local nurseries and growing native stock. Marina Conway from Enniscrone in Sligo is doing fantastic work in championing agroforestry as well. If the Minister of State gets an opportunity to visit Hometree, he will see the innovative work being done there. I know he is very active and is great for visiting places, but he should, during his tenure, visit them. I wish him all the very best in his tenure.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I will pick up on a couple of the points that have been talked about during the course of the debate. Coillte has been a focus for me for a long time. The Minister of State may or may not be aware that I have put forward proposed legislation on the mandate for nature, which was about changing the mandates of Coillte. Coillte is the largest landowner in the State, owning and controlling 7% of the land. Unfortunately, we have seen over a number of years policies in Coillte that have moved away from native trees and increasingly towards more and more Sitka spruce. We have seen the term time for wood decrease. We now import all of our telephone poles because those need to be trees that have a longer lifespan of 60 years, whereas we are seeing trees with a 30-year lifespan being increasingly used in forestry. Crucially, there is a short-term mindset in Coillte. That project is a really good example of it. With respect to the previous Government, to simply say, "Let's have a non-profit bit of Coillte", is not an adequate solution. Rather, we should be looking to shift the outdated mandate of Coillte, which is left over from the eighties. Coillte is very much a commercial forestry business. In the shareholder letters sent by the Government to Coillte, phrases like "cash generative" are used. It is not just value for money being talked about but short-term delivery of cash as the priority for Coillte rather than a longer term delivery of value for money or value for the State.
I would love an opportunity to meet and engage with the Minister of State and discuss with him the shifting of the mandate from it being the business of forestry on a commercial basis to one that is more sustainable economically, socially and environmentally. When we think about that, it is actually very solid. We still have the economic bit, which is important. We have to deliver economically through our forestry.
However, if we are saying are they delivering for local communities and society, the decisions and choice we make might be different. For example, we know the scandal when there was all of the outrage about going with a large multinational, with Gresham House investors, rather than engaging with local partners. If the Government were to say you can look for the economic return but you have to do it in a way that is socially sustainable, then it would be done in a slightly different way. Similarly, in environmental terms, it would mean that not only would we be delivering and achieving what we need to achieve in terms of climate, first and most important, as other speakers have said, and in terms of biodiversity, pollinators and all of the rest that it is going to deliver for us, but also it would be the kind of thing that would be a bit of insurance for ensuring Ireland has credibility when we go to the next round of big forestry policies. We know there were huge delays in the previous forestry programme, which will expire in 2027, within the term of this Government. A lot of it was the feedback from the European Union at the time and some of what was said, and I looked at all of the correspondence back in November, related to Ireland having too much of a business-as-usual approach.
When you look to the 8,000 ha, and we have heard it talked about a lot, and I will come back to Coillte in a minute, the balance is really off, because there was 250 ha of broadleaf and 250 ha of birch or alder. Agroforestry, which I was delighted to hear the Minister of State mention because it is something that should get a lot more support, was pinned for about 100 ha. Meanwhile, the mixed high forest, which is basically Sitka spruce, was 4,645 ha. We cannot be saying we are doing agroforestry as well when we are doing 100 ha and doing 4,600 ha of Sitka spruce. I will come to that in a minute. This is where I think we need a better form of thinking about it. We need to increase and improve the premiums people get when they are delivering on broadleaf and long term. They should be based on the carbon aspect - that is one part of it - but it should also be based on what they are doing for biodiversity and how they are delivering what I have called the ecological care credit. I know there are lots of farmers around the country who are doing really good work - the riparian riverside scheme is a really good example - and they should be rewarded for it properly, rather than having schemes that benefit massive commercial investors who land in and land out.
Going back to the socially, environmentally and economically sustainable aspect, one thing we learned from Storm Éowyn is that Sitka spruce is a liability when it comes to sustainability. We saw the 11,000 ha of Coillte land that got badly damaged and we saw that Sitka spruce became more damaged. One of the earlier speakers mentioned the phenomenon whereby the edge of the forest was still standing and the centre was gone. I can tell you why. It was because a lot of the edge of the forest is where they stick the broadleaf and, in the middle, you will find large swathes of Sitka that did not and does not stand up to extreme environmental events. That does not just go for those environmental events like the storm. If we look to what happened in Killarney with the terrible forest fires a couple of years ago, what was really interesting was that many of the indigenous trees weathered it. They did not go down in the same way, they were not damaged in the same way, and they had a resilience when it came to those forest fires. There is a lot in terms of the sustainable planting of trees. The right trees in the right places is important, and trees that are actually going to survive and thrive in that location is also important.
There is an opportunity, maybe within this scheme, but certainly going in to the next scheme that is coming and where we will be going back to the European Union - I hope not spending a year and a half messing with it this time to try to get a new scheme or to try to get out of the state aid rules again - to have a really different shift. Someone mentioned those who are looking to replant after Storm Éowyn, the difficulties they face with trees on the ground and all the rest of it, and that they might need help to do it in a different way. I would say we should look to a premium for those who use that as an opportunity to shift towards a different model of forestry.
We should look to particular incentives that encourage those who may have relied on the Sitka spruce and a short-term cycle with regard to its harvesting to invest in a longer term product and for them to feel confident that the State will pay them and reward them for that. It is an opportunity.
These are the policies that can be brought into place in general, but the big lever we have is Coillte. If Coillte gives a lead or shifts the way it does forestry, that will be the easiest and quickest thing we will have done with regard to delivering on our climate and biodiversity targets. It will also give leadership and create capacity within the forestry sector that all individual farmers and individual actors will benefit from. What we have seen, however, with the closure of that Natura project, is that Coillte cannot do it if it does not have the right mandate. If Coillte is being told to deliver a little bit of cash this year and that the Department wants to see a return in three years' time but is also being asked to be the engine for a new form of and approach to forestry in the future, there is a contradiction there. I am urging the Minister of State to consider that issue of strengthening its mandate and giving it a mandate that will deliver. Doing so would make Ireland's case much stronger when it comes to accessing EU funds and exemptions in the future, for example. I would love to have the opportunity to engage with the Minister of State on that.
I will raise a couple of other brief issues. I am sorry to be saying so many bad things about the Sitka spruce, but I have a few more bad things to say. There is an issue with regard to pests, including the pine weevil. Other people have talked about ash dieback, but there is also an issue regarding the pests associated with it. Let us be a bit ambitious about our forestry and try to do something substantial. Let us create forests for the ages. Ireland used to have the kind of forests that they built cathedrals from. Let us not just produce forests that give us wood pulp and 20-year products. When we discuss carbon credits and sequestering carbon, we need to be clear and honest. A tree does not start to store carbon until 20 years in. If we are planting trees and cutting them down after 20 years, we are not actually delivering on that. We will get called out on that.
I look forward to further engagement with the Minister of State. I know he is interested in that social component and I hope the environmental component as well. There is much that could be done to improve how we do forestry and learn from some of the unfortunate incidents that have happened over the past year.
Senators Scahill and Ahearn have indicated they wish to share time. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I will not go back over a lot of what my colleagues have said. One of the big things I encountered on Roscommon County Council before Storm Éowyn was the guidelines required for clear corridors in forestry for power and telephone masts and the proximity to roads and the enforcement and monitoring of those guidelines. That is one thing I wish to raise with the Minister of State.
A few of my colleagues mentioned the issue of roadside trees. Local authorities need to be resourced to treat roadside trees or to remove them. I know some of my colleagues do not agree with the latter approach. Tree management plans are what local authorities are following at the moment, but there is a safety element there. Many local authorities need assistance with removing these trees.
As for trying to hit the target of 8,000 ha of tree planting, I am looking at what has happened in other sectors and what other things we will need in that sector when we hit these targets. Arborists and arboriculture apprenticeships are something we need to promote right now in order that we will have the people on the ground to deal with this supply in a couple of years' time when the Minister of State hits the targets he is looking to achieve. Galway and Roscommon Education and Training Board, GRETB, has a practical hands-on course in Petersburg Outdoor Education Centre. It is very well subscribed. I would welcome the Minister of State visiting that facility at some stage.
We spoke about the 25,000 tonnes of trees that came down during Storm Éowyn. I may have that figure wrong. The mills are getting through that supply at the moment but, as there is an oversupply, there is a reduction in the actual price forestry owners are getting. My colleague, Senator Brady, made me aware that, for the first time in the history of the State, private forest owners have exported sawlog. A total of 3,000 tonnes of sawlog left Dundalk Port destined for Belgium last weekend. This was done without help or assistance from the Department. Forestry owners did it by themselves to achieve a fair price for their product.
I welcome the Minister of State. In the limited time I have, I cannot talk on every issue I would like to address. There is a particular issue I wish to raise, however. In his opening contribution, the Minister of State spoke about wanting to be a Minister of State who delivers and that if he does not deliver, then forestry fails, he fails as a Minister of State and the Government fails. That is true and the right way to look at it. There is one thing he can do that will differentiate him from previous Ministers and the Department in general and it relates to ash dieback. We still have people throughout the country who rightly feel they have been let down by the Department over a number of years. They believe they have not been heard.
Yesterday, I was on the land of Mary McCormack, just outside Killenaule in County Tipperary. She has been growing trees for years. It is a livelihood. She and her family absolutely love it. However, she has been dealing with ash dieback for the past ten to 12 years. It has been a real strain on the family. They feel as though no one understands it and no one listens. Mary told me yesterday that the Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, has been vocal on this in recent years, he understands it and he gets it. Today he has said he wants to be someone who delivers. These people feel that they have been forgotten about. They do not believe the scheme is enough or that the Department really cares about them and their issues. They are looking for someone to show leadership on this issue. I am calling on the Minister of State to do just that. They have been crying out for this for ten years. They have faith in him to do it and to support and protect them. This is their livelihood. They love what they do. Some of the excuses that have been given about why things cannot be done and trees cannot be cut relate to habitat, birds and wildlife. Yesterday I drove through Mary's land. In the area affected by ash dieback, there is no habitat whatsoever. In the area where the trees are growing perfectly, you can hear birds, see rabbits and see everything going the way it should be going. That is not is happening, however, where the trees have ash dieback.
I ask the Minister of State to visit Tipperary in his time in office, but also to listen to these people who have been vocal for the past number of years with the Department but feel as though they have not been heard. They are holding out for him to make a real difference for them. All they want to do is to grow trees and do it right, but also be supported and protected by the Department.
I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber. I have been hearing good reports back from my colleagues on Cavan County Council. I hope he means to go on as he has started.
In January, Storm Éowyn left behind a trail of destruction that was unprecedented in scale. Half of this devastation was on private land, meaning thousands of farmers, rural families and small landholders saw decades of investment wiped out in a matter hours. These people are now facing immense financial strain and a great deal of uncertainty, some having invested in planting their land as a future investment or a private pension. One forestry owner, who is a constituent of mine, recently shared that his timber was five years off maturity when Storm Éowyn hit and the impact on the market has been devastating. Before Christmas, sawlog was fetching approximately €100 per cubic metre but now prices have dropped to approximately €50 or €60. This is a direct result of supply and demand. There is suddenly a massive increase of timber available and nowhere near enough market capacity to absorb it. This has taken away the freedom for forestry owners to choose when to harvest, picking a time when prices are fair and returns justify the years of work and patience. That option has now been taken away. They are being forced to sell into a collapsing market because of a freak weather event and a lack of timely Government intervention. They are also losing out on their yearly supplement. What kind of compensation package can the Minister of State achieve for these farmers, to include the loss of earnings for the years until maturity?
I want to raise the issue of reckless and sometimes dangerous planting by Coillte, in some cases on important historical landmarks and monuments. Coillte is in the business of making money, of course. It is not in the business of managing facilities or amenities. I feel that for some sites, such as Killykeen, County Cavan, in Cavan Burren Park and Dún a Rí, which are amenity parks, Coillte cannot manage them effectively and that they should be signed over to the National Parks and Wildlife Service or even to some county councils. I hear the bell. Is that all I get?
I will give you injury time.
She is only warming up.
Like everybody else, I want to mention ash dieback. I have been a county councillor for nine years. It is especially urgent along roadsides. Also, there are instances of antisocial behaviour in forests owned by Coillte. It is a big problem in a lot of the small amenity parks. We might consider park wardens or something along those lines.
Anois, an t-Aire Stáit. I thank him for coming to Seanad Éireann to discuss this important topic, which has been well explored. He took on the portfolio in a very difficult time, especially with the storm that levelled hundreds of acres of forestry. I thank him for his ongoing work.
I thank the Cathaoirleach and as I do not believe I have had a proper chance to do this, I wish him every good luck in his very important role. It is very unusual to have neighbours who are so near to each other being so near to each other again here in the Chamber. I hope I can deal with this properly in the time I have. I will go quickly.
I will give the Minister of State injury time as well.
I want to deal with everything properly. I really appreciate the Senators' engagement. I will start with Senator Paul Daly. With regard to the 6,000 ha, he made a very important point. They have approval and the Senator asked what is happening with them. Myself and Mr. Barry Delany, who is the head of forestry, are working on this already. In the very near future - I am committing to have it done within the next four weeks - we will be contacting every person who has approval and asking why they have not moved. If we need to do something to persuade or encourage them, we will be doing it. These people have a licence. They are ready to go. I am scratching my head and wondering why they are not planting. The Senator was very right to raise that.
With regard to the licences, to make it clear in case I did not do so already, previously, foresters had to get a thinning licence to thin and then a clear-fell licence to clear-fell. I merged those two licences into one. If Senator Mullen has a thinning licence, he can now clear-fell on the strength of it, which saves bureaucracy and time. The result is that 60% of all the timber that is on the ground now, toppled or whatever, already has a licence. It was said by a few people that this was a matter of urgency and that it is urgent to get the timber out of the forests. That is factually not correct. Of course, if you have a forest and it is knocked, you want to see it gone and turned into money. However, it is not dying, rotting or wasting. If timber has been cracked, of course that is a different thing. I want to make that clear. A number of people said it is urgent. Of course I would like to see a timeframe of a year and a half to 24 months, but that is the type of time we are talking about. The forest is not on fire, it is knocked and it is still worth money. I thank Senator Paul Daly for his kind words.
Senators Tully and Brady raised the amount of planting. This year we are improving but I am not standing here boasting about what we are doing. We might be doing better than we were doing, but what we were doing was a disaster. At present we are only a small bit better than a disaster. Do not think I am standing here saying we are doing great and asking for a pat on the back. That is not the case. We are coming from a very bad place.
Senator Mullen raised the applications and said that when a person is dealing with an official in the Department, he would like for that person to take ownership of that application. I do not want them to own the application for too long. What I want them to do is turn it around and send it out with "approved" on it. I would like for them to know who they are dealing with, but not to be getting to know them too well that they would have to be contacting them a lot or anything like that.
One thing I did not say earlier was that I have an ambition that every forest in Ireland that is privately owned will be certified. Certifying a forest will give people an interest in their forest again. I am not looking to put an imposition of money on them. My aim is that the Department will be paying for it. Any person who has a forest will go to their forester and ask them to do up a management plan and get it certified. We will have a national certification scheme. Senators will know this, but for anyone who is listening, certification is like being Bord Bia-approved for your beef. It is like quality assured status for your forest. It will be a good thing and will give people an interest in their forest. It will give them pride in it. Most important, when they are cutting it and sending it to the sawmills - at present the sawmills can take uncertified timber from a forest but if it is certified, it is all the better. That is very important.
On the broadleaf trees, Senator Mullen said the premiums are not enough. I have dealt with that already through the issue of agroforestry. The Senator referred to the ESB power lines. Those points were very well made and I will come back to them again. With regard to the premiums for broadleaf trees and agroforestry, Senator Malcolm Noonan and I are very good friends but sometimes we do not agree. He said that agroforestry could be a help when it comes to things like reducing the national herd. There is no intention by the Department of agriculture to interfere in any way with our national herd. We do not want to do that.
I am not saying it is happening.
I just want to make that quite clear. From the Minister, Deputy Heydon, down to me and the other Ministers of State, we and this Government have no intention of reducing the national herd. We will promote agroforestry and make it a good use for people such that they can have cattle, sheep and a piece of land that is covered with agroforestry and get their premium for that as well. This Government is for farmers. We are for our national herd. We are supporting people who worked hard to build up a herd of cows and maybe a beef herd. This Government is supporting them in every strong, possible way.
Senator Brady described people being fearful of planting and the carbon credit issue, which I did not deal with. The carbon credits are very important. In my infinite wisdom many years ago, I automatically assumed that carbon credits were going to be a big thing of the future. I thought we would own them, could trade them and that they would be a valuable commodity. Unfortunately we have not got there yet. It is something we all aspire to. I believe that every farmer in the country, whether they have forestry or not, should be entitled to carbon credits. Many people would try to give the impression that farmers are doing some sort of damage to the countryside because they are farming it. Making a living producing food is a very necessary thing for all of us because otherwise we will all die of starvation. The issue of carbon credits is something I hope will be looked at in the future. The Senator's points are very well made.
A few Senators have mentioned the price of timber. Even today, I had the pleasure of visiting a very extensive sawmill. I was very glad to call to this business, which has existed more 100 years or more. To see the employment and expertise, and to see what they are doing on the ground with our product, and the massive amount of money that they have invested, the confidence they have in the sector, makes me really feel that we have an obligation to ensure they will have timber in the future and will not have to go to Scotland. In Scotland, 17,000 ha a year is planted compared with the paltry amount of planting done here. Scotland recognises the value of timber and the contribution that timber makes to its economy.
I am very glad with the way sawmills here operate. I am not afraid that they will pull down the price. They know they are in this for the long haul. The providers of their produce are their farmers. If sawmills do anything to blot their copybook at this time and lose the confidence of farmers, it will be bad for them in the future. These people are not fly-by-nights. They are not people who set up a business but are gone in no time. That is not the way. They are in this for the long haul. In general, they are generational workers. They are families and, hopefully, their families in the future will run these sawmills so they will do the exact opposite and try to keep the prices up.
Senators Collins, Tully and Higgins mentioned peatlands. This is where honesty is the best policy. I am not going to come in here and let on that I agree with somebody who says something that I do not agree with. I just do not operate that way. I am sorry and I do not mean to be rude or anything like that but if their policy with regard to peat was taken to its logical conclusion, in Ireland today, whatever amount of forestry we have, we would have about 80% less. If the policies that the Senators would like to see were there at that time, we would have a crazy situation. If the rules that are applied even today were applied before, we would not have any forestry or timber. That would affect the sawmills that give valuable employment and the construction industry were we want the timber. We would still need timber in Ireland but from where would we get it? We would have to import timber and that does not make sense.
Whether we like it or not, to get timber you have to stick a tree in the ground and it has to grow. If we are going to continually restrict where we go, and we are on 30 cm, and if we are going to be married to 30 cm in the future, then, quite simply, we will not have enough timber and will have to import it from Scotland and do nonsensical stupid things like that. I do not want that to happen. If we are talking about protecting the environment, is it not a lot better to have our own produce here in Ireland? That is why I and my officials in the Department will look at planting more peatland. Farmers want to plant peatland. Farmers do not want to plant their green ground because they have worked so hard to get the bit they have. They broke their backs and bones to make the land green and they do not want to plant trees on it but instead use it for grazing. We want to use green ground for grazing but plant trees on rough ground and peaty ground. I am afraid that this is just one of these things on which we cannot always agree. Am I out of time?
We are four minutes over time.
Keep going.
Burning it up.
The next Minister is waiting outside.
Give a bit of injury time.
I do not want to intrude on anyone’s time. I am very sorry but I wanted to be respectful to everybody by answering all of the questions.
When we are talking about the future of forestry, and I am particularly saying this when I hear people inside here saying, "We do not want to plant peat soils", that does not make sense because, like I said, look at what happened before. If we did not plant the peat soils before, we would have no forestry, timber or anything now. I am sure there is logic in what the Senators have said but I cannot see it.
I have one thing to read out about the ash dieback, and I apologise that I forgot this earlier, so please allow me just this. I was very taken with the lady who said she was so upset that she felt let down by the schemes. Approvals under the new ash dieback reconstitution schemes continue, with 1,077 approvals for nearly 4,000 ha issued to date. Those forest owners who replanted under any of the ash dieback reconstitution schemes can also avail of the additional climate action performance payment, CAPP, of €5,000 per hectare. That is very important. To date, CAPP payments for an area of 1,419 ha have been paid, amounting to €3.5 million. Since ash dieback was first identified, a total of €16 million has been paid in respect of site clearance and the replanting of ash forests. I encourage any forest owner who has yet not cleared an affected site to consider applying for the reconstitution scheme. The message I have for the people who are unhappy with the ash dieback situation and the way they have been dealt with is please come back to the Department and engage with us. If there is something more that can be done for them, it will be done. I do not want to see people upset or losing out on money. It has been an upsetting time for them and I understand that, but we are there to engage with them. If we can do something for them, we will, but if we cannot, then we are sorry.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence and the extra time.
I would always give a neighbour a bit of injury time.
Thank you, a Chathaoirligh.
That concludes statements on forestry.