Vol. 544 No. 4
66 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the total acreage committed to forestry in 1998, 1999 and 2000; the amount of acreage which is likely to be planted in 2001; his views on the reason the national target is not being met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29300/01]
The total area of afforestation grant-aided by my Department during the years 1998 to 2000 was as follows: 12,926 hectares in 1998, 12,667 hectares in 1999 and 15,895 hectares in 2000. It is estimated that approximately 15,000 hectares will be grant-aided in 2001. The planting targets set out in the 1996 strategic plan for forestry, Growing for the Future, envisaged annual planting of up to 25,000 hectares to 2000 and 20,000 hectares thereafter. While these ambitious targets have not been met in recent years, nonetheless the planting levels achieved have been significant.
There has been a number of significant developments recently which will help to bring plant ing in line with targets. First, the role of forestry as one of the motors of rural development has been recognised in the National Development Plan 2000-2006, which is co-funded by the Exchequer and the European Commission. Significant funding of about £540 million – 686 million – has been provided for afforestation under the plan, with a further £100 million available for structural measures. A further £80 million is being invested by the private sector.
Second, as the Deputy will recall, average increases of about 30% in the afforestation grant and premium levels were introduced for new planting last year. The current rate of premium is £308 per hectare for the standard 20% diverse conifer category in the case of farmers. Rates for broadleaf are as high as £373 per hectare. Premiums are payable to farmers over a 20 year period and are tax free.
The positive aspects of these substantial increases was partly offset, however, by the refusal of the European Commission to agree to similar increases for those who planted before 2000. While the Commission's attitude was disappointing, the importance of the matter was recognised by the Irish Government. At the end of July, I secured Government agreement to fund the increases from the Exchequer and I am now awaiting a decision from the Commission under the State aids procedure. A positive response from the Commission, which I expect to receive shortly, will give a very positive boost to the afforestation programme. I have also secured agreement in principle on the inclusion, for the first time ever, of a mid-term review of premium rates under the rural development plan. That review will be in hand next year.
There are two other aspects to which I need to draw attention. The national climate change strategy recognises the beneficial aspects of forestry, particularly in countering greenhouse gases and in its role as a carbon sequestrator and the rural development plan provides for the integration of forestry and REPS. This will offer significant opportunities for forestry in the future. Given the combination of these factors, I am confident that planting levels will increase to target levels on an incremental basis over the coming years.
I think the Minister of State is missing the point. I understand only too well the aids and benefits that exist for farmers and others to commit land to forestry. The Minister of State believes that the level is only 15,000 hectares this year. It was well flagged for the past two or three years that a 30% increase was on the way. Will the Minister of State tell the House what plans he and the Department have to try to include more land in afforestation, given that everybody understands the rate of grant aid and so on and that there is no hope of the national target being met over the next five or six years?
The partnerships between farmers and Coillte, while useful, are not being opted for by many farmers. Will the Minister of State outline the current strategy in the Department to try to ensure that much more land will be committed to forestry? I refer to the type of land that is obviously of little use for anything else. There is much land of this kind available, but for whatever reason, farmers are not committing it to forestry.
The Deputy will accept that farmers are very traditional and conservative. They find it difficult to move away from conventional farming. If farmers can secure more than £100 per acre, tax free and guaranteed for 20 years, I would like to hear about it, regardless of the type of land. We all know conventional farming is undergoing difficulties at present. Fifteen thousand hectares is approximately 40,000 acres of land. Much planting is required to meet this target. I hope that in the next few days we will get permission from Europe to increase the grant aid to those who planted prior to 1999. That, in itself, will be a big boost to farmers. When farmers begin to realise that the most recent increase of 30% has an in-built and added attraction in that it will be reviewed every three years, they will change their perspective.
The six minutes allotted for this question have elapsed.
Will the Minister of State do something for those who planted before 1992? They are left out of the equation altogether as far as grant aid is concerned.
The Deputy has raised this point with me on many occasions. I think he will be a very happy man before Christmas.
On a point of order, a few moments ago the Leas-Cheann Comhairle informed the Minister of State that his first reply had gone over the time allotted. Some time before that, he informed the Minister of State that on a supplementary reply he had gone over the time allotted. Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle request the Ceann Comhairle to bring to the attention of Departments that they should not produce ten minute spiels for Ministers who are answering questions? They are actually stifling debate. I have observed this, particularly in relation to briefs prepared by the Departments of the Marine and Natural Resources and Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. We get mighty speeches in the House in response to fairly simple questions that avoid all the issues. Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle ask the Ceann Comhairle to bring to the attention of Departments of State the rules of the House regarding replies so that they do not give Ministers these tomes of waffle?
The Chair has no control over the reply the Minister gives, but there is provision in Standing Orders that, when the Minister of State's two minutes are up and his attention is drawn to this, he is informed that the remainder of the reply will be included in the Official Report.
Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle bring it to the attention of the administrators of the Departments so they do not produce these novellas with which Ministers come to the House?
I will certainly pass on the view of Deputy Dukes. We now move to Question No. 67 in the name of Deputy Bell.
We could nearly put that song of Deputy Dukes to the violin. He produces it here every day. With regard to my Department, anything that comes before me in these answers is not waffle. It is all factual and interesting.
The Deputy is a fair old fiddler himself.
The Minister of State—
If the Deputy listened a little more, he might become as knowledgeable as his colleagues, Deputies Connaughton, Gilmore and Deasy. The Deputy is on a learning curve. If he listens more intently he will improve.
We have two minutes to deal with Question No. 67, one of which has elapsed.
