I thank the chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I am accompanied by Mr. Michael Fleming and Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan. I apologise on behalf of our president, Mr. John Bryan, who was to be with us today but he is also involved in the 2020 committee which is having its final meeting today.
I take this opportunity to outline our concerns in regard to the proposed changes to section 4 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2010. First, I shall provide a brief summary of the farm forestry resource. There are approximately 16,500 farmers who manage more than 160,000 hectares of forestry in Ireland. The farm forest resource is fragmented with an average plantation size of eight hectares. The age distribution of these forests is young; most of the forests were established during the past two decades, with approximately 20% entering first thinning stage. The potential of the farm forestry resource for rural development is enormous. A recent report forecasts that the overall net roundwood production from privately owned forests will increase from 380,000 cubic metres in 2010 to just under 3 million cubic metres by 2028. The current value of that is approximately €1.8 billion to the economy each year. The production potential of the farm forestry resource is not currently being realised. A number of obstacles have been identified including the cost of harvesting, economies of scale and the size of forests and access. This means that the income generation, employment and other associated economic benefits are being lost to the local economy.
We have serious concerns that the proposed amendment to section 4 will be another obstacle to the farm forestry sector reaching its production potential, as many farmers choose a non-thin management policy. First thinnings are not profitable operations. In the case of farm forests they typically yield a small profit that goes towards the cost of road construction. The forest road grant only covers a maximum of 80% of the road construction costs.
The cost of preparing, seeking planning permission and in some cases dealing with appeals could make thinning cost prohibitive and lead farmers to a totally different forest management regime. The imposition of planning, and the subsequent costs, would make the thinning of many, and clearfelling of quite a few farm forests unsustainable. The direct consequence would be poorer or no management, which would lead to a significant loss in quality and value to the State and to farmers.
The financial loss to the State could be far greater if Ireland opts to include the carbon effects of forest management in its national greenhouse gas inventories. Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol allows annex 1 countries to include the carbon effects of management of existing forests in its national greenhouse gas inventories. Reduced management would mean that the carbon sequestration effect achieved through forest management would be reduced and would cost the State millions of euro in carbon credits. Non-thin management regime would also lead to rural job losses in road construction and downstream timber processing. The knock on effect to the emerging wood energy market would be devastating as the volumes would be unavailable. It is estimated that to achieve Ireland's 2020 renewable energy target 4.3 million tonnes of biomass will be required per annum. It is envisaged that forest thinnings will form a significant proportion of the required volumes.
The proposed amendment is an unnecessary barrier to the mobilisation of the farm forestry resource, particularly when one considers that most forests open on to secondary and tertiary roads; there are often very limited options for exiting a forest on to a public road; and the level of traffic on the forest road is very limited.
The average conifer forest has a 40 year rotation, of which 25 years is productive. In an average eight hectare plantation forest the potential output is 4,000 tonnes. This equates to about 200 truckloads over the rotation of the crop. In reality the traffic is concentrated during thinning and clearfell operations for a couple of weeks at a time.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food currently govern forest roads and entrances. It has built up a substantive and well-regulated process, which is codified in the following publications: Code of Best Forest Practice; Forest Road Manual — Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Management of Forest Roads; and Forest Road Grant Scheme.
There is considerable emphasis on safety throughout the various road construction phases. In addition, the Forest Service refers applications to the local authority on the issue of road safety in respect of all proposed new entrances or lay-bys on to a public road. This ensures that all new forest road entrances satisfy the safety requirements of the local authority.
If there is demand for increased regulatory control, we suggest that the construction of new forest roads that involves opening of access to a public road be brought under a regulatory controlled forest consent system, similar to the one that currently operates for afforestation. Afforestation is not exempted under the Planning Act 2000 but power has been transferred to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food through a forest consent system regulatory regime.
There is no doubt that the enactment of the proposed amendments could seriously damage farmer participation in the afforestation programme. The uncertainty would mean that farmers would need to obtain pre-planning for any likely road or entrance at time of planting to guarantee that access would be available to remove the timber produce. This could negatively impact on our climate change strategy and renewable energy targets.
The priority must be to support farmers' participation in forestry as an alternative land use and encourage mobilisation of the farm forestry resource. Despite the recession the demand for wood increased in 2010. To mobilise more wood it is crucial that an adequate forest road network exists and the farm forestry sector must not be hindered. If supported, the value to the economy is significant. If production forecasts are achieved by 2010, the farm forestry sector has the potential to contribute up to €55 million to growers over the period and yield in the region of €3 billion to the Exchequer.
The IFA strongly opposes the proposed changes in the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 to section 4 of the Principal Act.
