Pat Cox
Ceist:14 Mr. Cox asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will give details of his Department's research and development programme for forestry in 1993.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Forestry Research and Development Programmes.
Helen Keogh
Ceist:73 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will give details of his Department's research and development programme for forestry in 1993.
Máirín Quill
Ceist:90 Miss Quill asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will give details of his Department's research and development programme for forestry in 1993.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14, 73 and 90 together.
My Department has drawn up a detailed five-year programme of forestry research. The main objectives of this programme are: to improve the quality, yield, production efficiency and diversity of wood grown in Ireland; to maintain and safeguard the stability and health of the national forest estate; to study the inter-relationship between forestry and the environment — physical, social, cultural and economic — and to advance technology transfer in forestry.
The research programme planned for 1993 has been prepared with these objectives in mind. In particular, projects will be undertaken in 1993 focusing on: the diversification of species; the vulnerability and stability of plantations to windthrow; the planting of broadleaves; product design; the development of standards; water quality, afforestation and the environment; and socio-economic studies on forestry and rural development. These projects will be carried out on the Department's behalf, on an agency basis, by Eolas, Coillte Teoranta and certain universities.
Provision is also made in the 1993 allocation for costs associated with the establishment of COFORD, the Council for Research and Development. During 1993, COFORD will work towards strengthening research facilities and it will also be involved in facilitating technology transfer.
Will the Minister decipher all the jargon in his reply? I am not sure what precisely he was talking about. Will he agree that the resources provided for forestry research are totally inadequate? Developments in this area have been painstakingly slow and the programme needs to be moved ahead at a much faster rate. When does the Minister envisage the type of research to which he referred being completed? Is this a long term package or can it be brought into operation immediately in the planting programmes so that we can benefit from the type of timber we should be producing at present?
I presume the Deputy will accept that there are never sufficient resources for any of the national programmes which we would like to see expanded.
Especially not with the Government.
I am sure this also applies to the programme of forestry research. I do not want to waste the time of the House outlining the various activities which have been undertaken by Coillte in the area of research — I understand that it has conducted research into 30 areas. Neither do I want to give a very lengthy and detailed description of the amount of research activity being undertaken by Eolas and, to a lesser extent, the universities.
I will circulate to the Deputies the result of all the research work being undertaken in relation to these headings. On forestry development generally we are on the threshold of worthwhile development. When Deputies have an opportunity to study the post-1993 operational programme for forestry they will see included many of the areas identified today in relation to research and so on. I am satisfied that considerable progress is being made in forestry development and there are even more significant plans for future development.
Will the Minister explain the social relationship between forestry and the environment? Will he say in what areas, if any, are results of research and development programmes, carried out by his Department, being applied in forestry practice, particularly in relation to broadleaf species?
I am sorry Deputy Dukes has a problem understanding the meaning of my response. The social area to which I referred is the making available of our forests and forest parks as a public amenity. I am sure the Deputy will agree that is a social area and one that was covered——
The Minister should read his brief again.
I am endeavouring to explain the position to the Deputy. The social aspect is the relationship between the community who visit our forest parks and national forests——
The Minister should read his brief again before explaining the matter.
I have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding the matter and I am sorry if Deputy Dukes has difficulty in this regard. I agree fully with Deputy Dukes — as I so often do — on the importance of including a greater percentage of broadleaf species in our overall national forestry development programme. We attach significant importance to expanding the area in relation to broadleaves and there will be greater diversification throughout the entire forest industry. The Deputy can be assured that the points he has raised are fully understood and will be taken into consideration in the ongoing forestry programme.
The Minister has outlined various areas of concern in relation to research but he did not mention the question of employment. Does he not agree that in forestry research and development job creation potential must be considered? There must be an assessment of industrial development needed to create jobs, whether in woodpulp or whatever. That should be a crucial element in research and development of forestry. The Minister also mentioned technology in terms of the removal of timber. Is he satisfied that technological advances will not affect current jobs in removing timber?
I fully agree with the views expressed by Deputy McManus in relation to the importance of job creation in forestry. It is a disappointment to me that it is not possible, at least in the short term, to expand on the potential in forestry for job creation.
The Government has promised 1,500 extra jobs in this area every year since 1987.
In all research work undertaken there must be a focus on the potential to create jobs. There is no point in having a national forestry plan unless there is capacity to generate employment and create wealth, which is the whole purpose of the national forestry programme. I am optimistic that jobs will be created in forestry in the immediate years. The Deputy mentioned improved technology. Negotiations are advanced in relation to the provision of a mill to process the less commercial grades of timber which up to now have not been utilised to the greatest possible extent. We hope to bring to a successful conclusion negotiations in relation to that facility. In addition, we hope to expand other aspects of the processing industry with a view to maximising the potential for job creation in forestry. I take the Deputy's point and assure her that job creation in forestry is very high on my agenda.
In replying to questions the Minister indicated that a sincere approach is taken to the question of employment in forestry. Will he say how much money is allocated in this year's Estimate under the various headings? How much money will be made available for research and development by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, by Eolas and by private sources?
The Department's ambition in terms of forestry growth is to reach the target of an annual planting rate of 30,000 hectares.
That does not answer the question I asked.
I do not have the answer to the Deputy's question.
The Minister would not have that information because it is a separate question.
It relates to the question put down by Deputy Cox.
I respect the Deputy in asking this question. Considerable funding will be provided in the next forestry operational programme for an expansion of national forests in terms of planting and processing. I assure the Deputy, who has interest in this area, that in the next operational programme forestry will get priority.
I am calling Question No. 15.
I have been offering for ten minutes, since I asked my first supplementary question.
The Deputy has contributed already. We have covered only three questions in 40 minutes, I am moving on to Question No. 15 in the name of Deputy Donal Carey.
This question was put down in my colleague's name and I was allowed to ask only one supplementary.
I am moving on to Question No. 15.
I have been rising in my place since I asked the first supplementary.
The Deputy had an opportunity to ask a question and I am calling Question No. 15.
On a point of order, is it the practice that we are only allowed one supplementary on a question put down by our party?
I judge that that question has received quite enough airing. I want to facilitate as many Deputies as possible and I am moving on to Question No. 15.
I asked only one supplementary on that question and I allowed other Deputies to come in. You are being grossly unfair, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.