The report on Forestry Measures deals with the important and interesting new development in the Community, the encouragement of forestry. It has regard to the difference which can exist between encouraging private forestry and State forestry.
Proposal for a Council Directive in Forestry Measures.
We went into this in detail some time ago.
We did so at sub-committee level and we had some excellent assistance from the Department of Lands in particular. Paragraph 2 deals with the situation in regard to the forestry and the common agricultural policy. Members will note there that there is an evolving situation regarding this directive. Originally, one suspects that the approach of the Commission was to use forestry to deal with agricultural problems, to take land out of agriculture and devote it to forestry. That has been watered down considerably since. The Commission now expressly acknowledge the value of forests as a social amenity and their importance to the environment generally.
Paragraph 3 sets out the scope of the directive. It is important that we should look at that. It obliges member States to establish a system of financial aids to encourage the afforestation of marginal agricultural and uncultivated areas; the development of low-production woodlands; the establishment of shelter belts; the construction and improvement of forest roads, and the creation of recreational facilities. Those last two are of important significance in our context as Members will see later.
Paragraph 4 sets out the proposals in detail. The important thing there perhaps is sub-paragraph (d) which states that the overall Community contribution to the cost would be 25 per cent, subject to certain maximum rates of contribution for particular measures.
We spent some time on paragraph (e). This question of 2 per cent of the total land area of a region, which is not owned or leased by the State, is one of the problems we had so far as our overall position here was concerned. There was very little in private hands and it was mainly a State orientated programme. It would mean that we would lose out on this.
The proposal was amended to meet our conditions.
Has it been amended?
It was amended to meet our conditions. In paragraph 5 we come to that area of disagreement I mentioned, the difference between State forestry and private forestry. In the beginning this Directive was almost exclusively intended for private forestry and to that extent we could not be too happy about the situation because we are mainly a State forest country. However, the Directive was amended and altered to give particular attention to our situation. The European Parliament went along with the approach that State forestry should be excluded. At the bottom of the page we have set out the position. A very small percentage of forest is in private hands. The State is the proprietor of 90 per cent of our forests and does 95 per cent of planting.
That has now been amended to suit our conditions.
Even though the Directive has been amended to allow assistance here to State forests and not to exclude State forestry completely, it is still a bit weak, from our point of view, as far as State forestry is concerned. On page 5, we refer to the exclusion of forestry roads.
Did we not take the view in the sub-committee that this was just for a five-year period to see how it would go, and to drop this amendment?
Yes, and more than that, we also felt, as a Committee, slightly different from the Department in our approach. The Department were naturally very keen on State forestry. In the Committee we were inclined to attribute a great deal of importance to private forestry also. We regarded the Directive as valuable in regard to private forestry even if it was not as beneficial as we would like it to be in regard to State forestry. Nevertheless, we think it is valuable in that it does something for private forestry, which is very neglected.
I think we took up the point that where there was land suitable for planting the use of the words " held on lease by the State " was not helpful because the State had the know-how and the manpower and could take over this land for a lease period, set up the forest, and ultimately let it back to the owner. The use of the word " lease " precluded that possible operation.
In paragraph 7 we come to an outline of what we think our approach should be.
The approach seems to be leaning too heavily in favour of State forestry. Surely the State only stepped in and took the initiative in regard to forestry because private forestry was negligible. Now we seem to be choosing between the two and saying that we believe the development of private forestry would be welcomed if it complemented and did not disrupt the State's forestry programme. I would have thought——
We had an interesting, not confrontation, but discussion with the Department on this whole business. The Department's interest, and rightly so in view of their obligation and statutory duty, is State forestry. They were very concerned when the Directive came out first and it did not apply to State forestry at all, that it was all for private forestry. They feared that this would interfere with their programme; that if private forestry was encouraged it would have detrimental effects on their State forestry programmes. At the Committee we put forward the case for private forestry and persuaded the Department to the extent that they were prepared to agree that it was legitimate to encourage private forestry to a fairly considerable extent without it having any detrimental effects from their point of view.
Private forestry?
Yes, private forestry. They recognised that perhaps they had been a bit over-cautious. In our circumstances you could encourage an enormous amount of private forestry before you get anywhere near damaging State forest programmes. Paragraph 7 represents a sort of compromise between the two points of view—between our wish to favour private forestry and vary the Directive in favouring private forestry and the Department's very strong anxiety that this would not, as it evolved, interfere with their programme. We tried to maintain a reasonable balance.
I have forgotten their precise objections when they talk of interference.
When getting land, the Department were worried that if private forestry was very generously supported from public funds, it might interfere with their programme of land acquisition for forestry purposes.
We felt that private forestry could and should be encouraged as much as possible. I wonder how much we emphasised that in our final document.
I may say that there is no great enthusiasm in Community circles for this whole business. Ireland is having to force some attention to State forests. That is the position.
Because the private sector is mainly favoured elsewhere.
The Community are not anxious to pay any attention to State forestry. They are much more concerned in the Directive to encourage private forestry.
I think there is a different attitude on the Continent. The large private concerns are in a more stabilised situation. Ours is a development situation.
France has big forests. Bavaria has enormous forests.
I would be happy if the words " and did not disrupt" were omitted; merely that the Joint Committee believe in the development of private forestry. It is on the end of the first paragraph on page 6 :
. . . the Joint Committee believes that the development of private forestry would be welcome if it complemented and did not disrupt the State's forestry programme.
I would omit " and did not disrupt ".
I accept that. As we go on, we could be more in favour of encouragement for private forestry. We could ask the Government to direct attention to incentives, the value of planting trees, providing shelter belts and such work as is carried out to the best advantage, and ask that the grants be at the maximum level. We hope that some subvention for State afforestation will be pressed for. One aspect of that should be kept in mind and, that is, the way the Directive is evolving. It could happen that the Community assistance for State forestry would be directed more towards public recreational facilities. That would be desirable.
To be fair to the Department I think they have done a lot, a tremendous amount, and it is very much appreciated.
I have no hesitation in saying that perhaps the most attractive and successful of all the Departments of State is the Wildlife Service in the Department of Lands. It is very imaginative and first class. Can we take it, then, that that is finally our decision, that we do not want this business which was incorporated in the Directive originally, that the area of land must be sufficient to justify high scale management, to exclude small but very important centres of private areas of management? We said a minimum of five acres, a minimum of not more than five acres.
You could have a minimum of more than five acres.
Yes, it is badly put. The point is that they might set a target that the minimum be 20 acres in order to ensure a high-class standard of management. We think that would be too high. We want the minimum brought down to five and not more than five.
That would be my experience from a rural constituency. That is what you would require to have the thing based on.
Does everybody accept Senator Ryan's amendment?
Amendment agreed to.