Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 13 February 2018
27. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his plans to make changes to the forestry programme to restore priority to farmers as opposed to non-farmers who under the present programme receive equal treatment, which has created an anomaly in land prices that disadvantages the farming community; and his further plans to increase the level of assistance for engagement in agroforestry. [7227/18]
View answerThe Minister will be aware of the mid-term review of the forestry programme in respect of which a huge issue arises for County Leitrim and other areas in the north west where there are large amounts of afforestation that are having a devastating affect on communities and society in general. I am seeking confirmation from the Minister that, in the context of that review, consideration will be given to restoring priority to farmers in relation to grants for afforestation as opposed to the people who buy up the land and get farmers to apply for the grant, which means that for the first 15 years investors, who are very far removed from the communities in which the trees are grown, rather than farmers are getting the grant.
I thank Deputy Kenny for this question. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, is unavoidably absent today. The current forestry programme does not differentiate between a farmer and non-farmer but targets funding at all landowners who wish to convert lands to forestry. It is important to note that the non-farmer category also includes recently retired farmers and the family members of existing farmers. I am satisfied that the vast bulk of the grants and premiums paid under our forestry schemes are paid to, and remain in, rural Ireland.
Reinstating the farmer-non-farmer forest premium differential is not an option being considered by the Department. Therefore Forestry Programme 2014-2020 will continue to pay the same premium to all landowners to ensure that the maximum amount of land is available for afforestation.
With regard to land prices, the value of land is governed by the laws of supply and demand, and for those selling land, this is a positive development. There are many reasons lands are put up for sale and there are also regional variations in terms of demand, supply and quality which influence the final price paid for land. Forestry may be one of many factors which can influence movements in land prices. According to my Department’s own analysis, returns from forestry, while attractive for landowners, are not such as to drive excessive land prices.
From an investment perspective, investors cannot afford to pay too much for bare forestry land given the returns available, and this should act as a natural brake for this type of investment. For farmers, forestry offers a viable alternative enterprise which allows them to diversify their income stream towards the more stable timber market and for this reason the supports offered by the State are very much welcomed.
My Department is currently undertaking a mid-term review of the forestry programme 2014–2020, under which there will be proposals to make further improvements to the forestry schemes. These improvements are aimed at encouraging farmers to see forestry as part of the farming enterprise as opposed to being an alternative to farming. I expect to be making a further announcement on this review and its recommendations in the near future.
I thank the Minister for his reply but it is not what I wanted, nor does it reflect what the vast majority of farm organisations and people involved in the industry, certainly in the north west, want to see happen.
The Minister referred to a mid-term review. That should be postponed until such time as several issues are dealt with. One such issue concerns Coillte, the contracts and the associated problems. Another issue is ash dieback, which has not yet been resolved. Large sections of the north west - the land to which the Deputy McConalogue referred, which is usually land of natural constraint - are being taken over by a monoculture of Sitka spruce forestry. This is having an absolutely devastating effect on communities and farmers trying to buy adjacent land. These farmers may be competing with farmers from very far away who are buying the land to obtain carbon credits from forestry to offset against other activities. They are legitimately entitled to do this but, from the point of view of the people who live in the areas where the forests are being planted, it is devastating. The Government needs to halt the review, go back to the drawing board and come up with solutions. The existing solution is not working for the communities.
I accept some of the points the Deputy is making. I realise the narrative on forestry in the communities to which he refers is not positive. We all need to work collectively with the communities to explain the benefits. The Deputy represents a constituency in which there is considerable employment downstream from the timber industry. It is very valuable employment. I am sure the Deputy agrees. This employment would be put in jeopardy if we did not continue to have a supply of timber. This message rarely gets out. I refer not only to the major processing plants but also to local enterprises providing fuel and pellets for heating, for example. In total, there are approximately 12,000 people working in the industry. This is not to be sneezed at. Significant export earnings are generated.
I accept there is resistance, however. Landowners almost regard forestry as throwing in the towel and accepting defeat. A fundamental question must be asked, however, regarding what forestry will deliver for farmers, not through the selling of land and throwing in the towel but through tax-free income. This is significant and sometimes overlooked. We should try to acknowledge collectively that forestry has a significant role to play, including in terms of climate change mitigation. We should try to embrace the positive side while also working with the communities.
I accept that. I know many people who work in the forestry industry. I was at the Masonite factory last week. For every hectare of land planted with forestry, however, the number of jobs created is very low by comparison with the amount of work generated by farming. Consider all the inputs associated with farming land. Farmers bring their cattle to the marts and when they sell them the meat is processed. This happens every year. The cow calves every year, the calf is raised and the processing occurs on an annual basis. One must wait 40 years for the trees to grow.
There is a tax-free premium for 15 years.
There is a tax-free premium for 15 years but the point I am making is that, in County Leitrim, that premium is very often being drawn by people who do not live in the community and who have nothing to do with it. Where I live and in other such places, almost 20% of the land has been planted. If one takes the rivers, mountains and lakes out of the equation, one notes that probably 50% of the available land in County Leitrim is under forestry. It is time to call a halt to it. Other areas of the country need to bear some of the burden. County Leitrim will be overrun with forestry and will have no place for people any more. This should not be allowed. The time has come to ban forestry in places such as County Leitrim.
The purpose of the mid-term review is to take stock of the forestry programme and analyse why the established targets were not being met, the extent to which they were not being met and the measures necessary to ensure we get back on track in meeting the targets. This is the context of the mid-term review and what it has primarily been about; it is not a fundamental reappraisal of the forestry policy at all.
I hear the point the Deputy makes. Nobody who is tuned in to this debate is unaware of the issues he talks about. There is a positive side that rarely attracts attention, however. The Deputy mentioned Masonite Ireland. That is part of the story but not the full story, however. There is the question of partial afforestation and the ability of farmers to continue to farm the rest of their land. It is not necessarily a matter of selling up and allowing the land to be planted by somebody else, be it a local buyer or an outsider. One must be careful about interfering in the market and with people's right to extract the best price when they decide to sell their holding. There are issues to be addressed but there is a positive story that can be sold. Notwithstanding what the Deputy says, Leitrim does not have the highest rate of afforestation in the country.
Agroforestry.
