Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 Feb 2023

Vol. 291 No. 9

National Forestry Fund: Motion

I welcome the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, and thank her for being here.

The debate on this motion on the national forestry fund is to conclude after two hours. I remind members that under the time slots note in regard to new procedures approved by the House, the combined speeches of the proposer and seconder shall not exceed 16 minutes and all other Senators have six minutes, with the Minister having 15 minutes to reply to the debate whenever she wishes to indicate.

Does Senator Boyhan wish to proceed? We can suspend if necessary.

No. I wish to proceed.

I call Senator Boyhan to move the motion.

My colleague is coming.  I will just give him one minute.

I propose that the sitting be suspended for five minutes.

Let Senator Boyhan go and do his housekeeping.

Take that five minutes out of the 16 minutes the Cathaoirleach mentioned.

No.  We will not aggravate Senator Boyhan.

Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 6.20 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 6.21 p.m. 
  Sitting suspended at 6.20 p.m. and resumed at 6.21 p.m.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann notes that:

- currently, 11.6 per cent of Ireland is under forestry, with a target of reaching 18 per cent by 2050;

- in 2020, Ireland committed to plant 22 million trees a year from 2020 to 2040, that is 85,000 trees every working day;

- the national forestry targets have not been achieved; the level of afforestation in 2020 was 2,435 hectares, in 2021 it was 2,016 hectares, and in 2022 it was 2,243 hectares;

- forests once covered 80 per cent of Ireland’s land; sustainable forestry management plays a key role in promoting biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and farmer welfare;

- Ireland has one of the lowest forestry levels out of all European countries;

recognises that:

- the Irish forestry sector provides a significant number of jobs and is worth over €2 billion and further investment is needed to ensure the stability of the rural community and rural economy;

- National Forest Funds exist in over 50 countries;

- while the structure of individual national forest funds varies, the number of forestry funds has increased by 34 per cent between 2001 and 2014;

- Coillte has identified a lack of equity as being their biggest issue;

acknowledges that:

- while Ireland wants to grow its forestry sector, Ireland cannot lose sight of its climate ambitions, Ireland must expand its forestry sector but not at the expense of important measures around sustainable forest management;

- a National Forest Fund can help meet long-term investment needs, namely:

- sustainable resource development requires long-term planning horizons, national forest funds can shield the forestry sector against the fluctuations and unpredictability of national budgets;

- national forest funds can create increased transparency and accountability by involving relevant stakeholders from outside the Government in their administration;

and calls on the Government to:

- evaluate the benefits of establishing a scheme such as a State-run national forestry fund that could help to develop the forestry sector by:

- creating tax incentives for those who invest in the fund;

- achieving climate goals through sustainable and biodiverse afforestation;

- furthering Irish-owned and managed forestry enterprise;

- instituting a short, medium, and long-term investment model with guaranteed protections;

- creating high, medium or low-risk investment options;

- investing the funds in a range of sustainable State-approved forestry project;

- establishing a scheme that could be a source of support for small farmers, environmentalists and smaller forestry enterprises;

and

- publish a report on a potential model for the possibility of a national forestry fund by 1st September, 2023.

I am formally proposing this Private Members' motion on my behalf and on behalf of Senators McDowell, Clonan, Craughwell, Keogan and Mullen. I understand we have 16 minutes and I am due to speak for 15 of those 16 minutes. It will not require 15 minutes but I have already discussed that with my colleagues.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. I know she is enormously committed to forestry, as she is to many other issues, but in this particular area the right tree is in the right place, which is nearly her slogan or brand at this stage. She is a strong advocate and I want to acknowledge that. I also want to acknowledge the presence of one of the most senior civil servants in the Department; it is always great to see him here.

I will cut to the chase. This is a simple and reasonable motion, which addresses many of the issues and challenges we have in forestry. The Minister of State will be conscious that we have debated the Gresham House sale at length, and I do not intend to go into that tonight. We also had a long exchange of four or five hours with the Minister of State at the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. In that respect, I acknowledge the presence of Senator Paul Daly. That debate stirred great pride in our forestry. It also stirred something in the people of Ireland with regard to their commitment to Irish land, the sensitivity around land ownership and that wonderful resource, Irish forestry, which is unique to our climate and the climate challenges we face.

All Senators know that in 2020 Ireland committed to planting 22 million trees per year between 2020 and 2040. That is 85,000 trees every working day. What a figure, task, challenge and ambition that is. I would like to think we can all go some way to help realise that national ambition. Our national forestry targets have not been achieved. Let us not spend any more time on that. Let us pull together our resources and commitment and unify to see how we can address the shortcomings in achieving those targets. The level of afforestation was 2,435 ha in 2020, 2,016 ha in 2021 and 2,243 ha in 2022. Sustainable forestry management plays a key role in promoting biodiversity, carbon sequestration and farmer income for many. The Irish forestry sector provides a significant number of jobs and is worth over €2 billion. Further investment is needed to ensure the stability of rural communities, the rural economy and the forestry and farm sector. This is the background to the forestry motion that my colleagues and I are proposing.

National forestry funds exist in over 50 countries. The structure is divided between individual national forest funds and varies from country to country but the number continues to increase year on year. Coillte has identified a lack of capital as being one of the challenges around forestry investment and expansion. If Ireland is to grow its forestry sector, the focus must be on achieving sustainable forests with mixed forestry, by which I mean deciduous, broadleaf and spruce forestry. Coillte is pioneering the idea that when forests are cleared and new forests planted there should be a 50:50 split between deciduous and broadleaf trees. We need new schemes and we have to look imaginatively at forestry in terms of the sustainable forest in the broader sense of what sustainability means. A national forestry fund would target sustainable forestry that could yield results for a variety of investors. That is an important point. A national forestry fund would create increased transparency and accountability by involving relevant stakeholders from outside the Government in their administration.

We are all aware of the concerns that have been expressed in both Houses about Coillte's involvement in the Irish Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, and Gresham House. I will not go into the detail of that. The forestry fund we are proposing in the motion will mean citizens will be in a position to make a choice to participate in a positive social and environmental investment. The latest controversy about Gresham House, as I said, sparked national interest in the ownership of our forestry and natural resources and the enormous potential of same. That was one of the good things about that debate. We cannot revisit aspects of that deal, as the Minister of State knows. However, that debate motivated an engagement and a conversation on how we manage this important and unique natural resource, our forestry. The public debate has shown that people are interested in this intersection of forestry, climate change mitigation and national pride. A forestry fund would allow citizens to be part of the solution and to dip in at whatever level they wish. There will be a series of imaginative options with which they can engage.

The programme for Government made commitments to develop innovative forestry strategies. It states:

In order to deliver this expanded and deepened climate ambition, far-reaching policy changes will be developed across every sector, including in particular ... Developing a new strategy to expand afforestation, particularly Close to Nature Forestry and agro-forestry.

Later, the programme for Government states:

Trees and forests store carbon, clean the air, mitigate water movements, prevent soil erosion, provide habitats for flora and fauna, and provide an attractive amenity for the public. The forestry industry is a significant employer in rural communities, providing in the region of 12,000 jobs. We will fully support this sector and will:

Publish a successor forestry programme to deliver an ambitious afforestation plan reviewing grant and premium rates across all categories in this area, with a particular focus on an increased farmer rate of support.

The motion calls on the Government to do a number of things. It seeks to evaluate the benefits of establishing schemes such as a State-run national forestry fund that could help to develop the forestry sector by creating tax incentives for those who invest in the fund and achieve climate goals through sustainable and biodiverse afforestation. The Minister of State has been a driver of that since her appointment and long beforehand. That key element of Green Party policy is now a key Government's policy. I acknowledge the shift in emphasis the Minister of State and her party have brought to this tripartite coalition Government. Movement has been substantial. It is commonplace in these Houses to talk about a sustainable environment and economic and sustainable development of our forestry. Those goals are not mutually exclusive and they can be achieved. There has been a shift in conversation, language and policy. It is one that I and the Independent Group welcome.

The motion proposes creating tax incentives for those who invest in the fund to help achieve climate goals through sustainable and biodiverse afforestation and, importantly, to "further Irish-owned and managed forestry enterprise".

I acknowledge the enormous expertise in our forestry sector. I know we no longer have a forestry school in Avondale. I was talking to a group of people involved in the forestry sector there two weeks ago and there is a huge excitement and ambition for our forestry sector. There is a keenness for it and a lot of young people want to get involved in forestry at all levels, from silviculture to growing nursery stock and planting. It is not all academic forestry, which has a place, but there are also people who want to get involved in forestry through apprenticeship models.

They want to get out on the ground. They want to be involved. The Minister of State knows herself how she and the Government are pursuing a policy of involving many farmers. The collective result will be that much more land will be in forestry if we can get farmers to buy in at various levels. It is these collective combined hectares in forestry that will make a significant difference and I encourage it.

We encourage further Irish-owned and managed forestry enterprise, instituting short-, medium- and long-term investment models for investors with some protection, and this is important. We have not gone into great detail on the granular detail of the fund. We do not think that is the right thing to do. We are flagging an interest. It is a very general motion committed to stakeholder engagement and citizens being involved, be they urban or rural. How many people living in an urban space would like to invest and get some sort of reasonable return? Certainly they would like some guarantee for the initial outlay, bond or premium they are investing. It is important with regard to the environment and many would view it as ethical. It is a choice for others. Many of us here have pension funds. Now when we are reviewing our pension schemes we are asked whether we would like to shift some of the investment into sustainable, environmental or ethical investments. There might be a slight change in the premium but people are making that choice based on information and, importantly, choice. We would like to see a fund created that would provide high-, medium- and low-risk investments and options. Clearly it would have to be explained to those who wish to invest.

We would like to see the investment of funds in a range of forestry projects that have been approved as sustainable. The motion does not detail private versus State forestry. We do not want to get into that. We need more trees. We see the challenges and we see the benefits. There may be schemes that have nothing to do with State forestry schemes but they are approved and meet certain criteria of which the Minister of State and the Department are fully aware and support.

We call for the establishment of a scheme that could be a source of support to small farmers, environmentalists and allied forestry enterprises. I like the word "environmentalist". Somebody asked me today whether we need to speak about environmentalists. Yes, we do. We live in an environment. It is a built one and a natural one. We are all environmentalists, or we should all be environmentalists. We do not have to be pure about the title of being an environmentalist. I would like to think we are all environmentalists. Therefore, it is important that the word is used. We also speak about allied forestry enterprises in the motion. How can we embrace forestry enterprises in all of this? We seek the publication of a report on a potential model for the possibility of a national forestry fund by 1 September. We make clear that we do not have all of the answers. We have a concept and an idea of which we feel people are supportive. Again, we are open to suggestions from the Minister of State. We recognise there are demands but we would like to see something worked on.

I acknowledge the role of Senator Tim Lombard. When we discussed this at the committee he was one of the first people who flagged the idea of a model of investment and asked how we could reach out to stakeholders. The Minister of State was there, as was the Minister, Deputy McConalogue. They indicated that in general it was a nice idea. Someone suggested it was the only bit of common sense spoken on the night in question. I acknowledge that and I also acknowledge that Senator Lombard flew another flag. It is something we had been speaking about. We were wondering how we could move it from a committee room in the basement in the bubble of Leinster House and bring it to the floor of the House to see if we could get something going on it.

I thank Shannon Paulson who is in the Gallery. She is on an IPA parliamentary placement semester from Berkeley University in California in the USA. When we flagged this to Ms Paulson, she quickly went about gathering information on it. Her degree is in environmental economics and policies. She assisted greatly in the research for this debate, along with our own Robert Dunne, the Seanad Independent Group researcher and communications officer. A lot of work has been done on the motion and I thank all of the Members in our group for it.

I received a press release and fact sheet from Coillte titled "Fact Sheet, Press Release and Q&A: Gresham House launches Irish forestry fund with Coillte and ISIF to drive afforestation in Ireland". It was launched on Friday. I will not get into the detail. It is on Coillte's website and people can look at it themselves. It refers the need for private capital or any capital to do it. We know there are certain ongoing restrictions and the Department is working on them with the European Commission. I believe our forestry is something the Irish people hold dear. They believe in it and want to see it succeed. We all want to develop our targets. It is not a question of the Minister of State, me or the Government failing. We all recognise the potential for forestry. We all recognise the potential for timber in the new construction of homes, which is very important. It is something of which we should be mindful.

I have no doubt the Minister of State has considered the motion in detail and I hope we can get support across the House for it. It makes sense. It is fair and reasonable. It is fully compatible with the programme for Government. It is not at odds with any policy set down in the programme for Government. I really believe it is something positive that we can all get behind. We can reach out to urban and rural people who may wish to invest some money, equity or capital in something that is sustainable and for the future.

I second the motion.

How do I follow Senator Boyhan? Such is the generosity of my colleague that he pointed out Senator Lombard's input into this. Typical of Senator Boyhan, he has brought forward something that most people in the House and most people in the Oireachtas could agree with. Irish people will get behind a project if it is the right type of project, particularly now that there is a lot of interest in environmental issues. All we have to do is put a plan together and make sure there is a return on investment. My €150 would go into it any day of the week. I believe people would get behind this, particularly those with young children who want to secure the future. They would be happy to invest in something such as this.

I welcome the Minister of State Senator Hackett for the debate. The Government will not oppose the motion. I compliment Senator Boyhan on bringing it before the House. It will open up debate on the concept and model for investment, to use his own words. I would like to have this debate but I suppose we are all carrying the scars from the debate we had on the Gresham House concept.

I would be very wary of any forestry fund that would not be specifically geared or aimed towards public-owned land. With any fund, irrespective of whether it is citizens' money, national money, Exchequer money, international money or multinational money, if it is going to buy land, it will tilt the market against farmers. It would also direct them towards Leitrim and that general direction. The competitive land in more aggressive agricultural areas further south would probably be priced out of the market. A fund, irrespective of whether it is Senator Craughwell's €150 or international money, will have to be managed and be profitable. We need to be very careful.

I am not knocking the concept. I agree wholeheartedly with the concept for public land, that being land that is already in the ownership of the State. If it will put people into forestry for profit, it will squeeze the fund that we have and which we all welcomed. We have a national forestry fund of €1.3 billion. It was announced prior to Christmas and is part of the forestry programme. That is the fund we need to manage. It is there to reward the farming community for sowing trees, whether on a very large commercial basis or on 1 ha, and whether it is agroforestry or riparian forestry. The premium has been increased by between 46% and 66% for the farmers. It has been extended for farmer-owned land from 15 years to 20 years. This is how we will have sporadic forestry and how we will save areas such as Leitrim, which is to the fore of all of our minds when we discuss forestry. Leitrim is already 18% afforested and I am fearful that any large quantity of money in any fund, irrespective of who is funding it, would head in that direction again.

However, if it is farmer-driven and the €1.3 billion fund is taken up by them, there will be smaller scale forestry sporadically around the country. That is the ideal scenario and all our targets can be through that model. Let it be down to 1 ha per farm; it would help us reach our targets. We need an information and promotion campaign to rebuild the confidence of the farming community. That is something I would like to see coming out of this debate and I have mentioned it previously. Without being negative, we are all aware of and can agree that because of issues over the past few years, there is a lack of confidence in the forestry sector from our farming community. These issues are currently being well managed and moving in a positive direction. I strongly ask that a promotion campaign or advertising campaign would come out of this debate. It could even be a round of town hall-style meetings by Coillte or the Department or whoever, to talk to farmers and show them the advantages and the potential financial gain in getting into forestry even on a small scale. A hectare of Irish native trees can return more than €1,000 per year. Over 20 years that is €20,000 and the crop is still there to be harvested. A lot of people would buy in to that. It does not need to be driven by large-scale funds. However, I would also farmers to be definitively told that they will have the carbon credits for the forestry they sow. This should be coupled, sooner than later, with a proper farm-by-farm inventory of carbon sequestration, including the hedgerows of Ireland, of which there are 300,000 km. I guarantee that an inventory done on any individual small-scale suckler farmer in the west or north west, coupled with the hedgerows and grassland, and which told them the carbon being sequestered, the farmer would add in 1 or more ha of forestry if they got the credit. The day is coming where the funds we are discussing will buy carbon credits, not land for forestry. We need to start that debate now and make sure it will not be funds wheeling and dealing in forestry carbon credits, irrespective of who it is sown by. It needs to be sown and it will be sown. We should couple that debate with this one, and get a definitive answer for the farmers. They would seriously look at planting their hectare plus of forestry were they to gain something from the carbon credits part of the fund. That is the way to go. It should be farmer-driven. The farmers own the land. Should we start any system where someone else is buying the land, there will be consequences down the line.

I thank the Minister of State. I acknowledge, first, the members of the agriculture committee who are present. We all have our strengths and weaknesses but the committee works well. A lot of its members are in the House tonight. This is a good debate and comes out of our debate on the previous fund proposed by Coillte, and the knock-on debate about our forestry programme in society . It has been good because we have had to flush out where we are going with this forestry programme. The scale of what is proposed between now and 2050 is amazing. We are talking about bringing forestry levels up to 18% of the area of Ireland. That means planting the equivalent area of County Louth twice over between now and 2050. I have no issue with County Louth. To put it another way it means planting half of Cork county. That is a significant area, which is not in public ownership. The majority of that land is in private ownership. How we are going to get the private entity involved in that is important. The Minister's statement at the committee, which Senator Daly restated, is that the figures stack up and are quite significant. If one was to have the opportunity to set aside 1 ha and over a 20 year period draw down €20,000, that is a significant amount. That story needs to be told about the forestry programme. Putting €1.3 billion into it is significant. It is now about telling that story to ensure that we can get the farming community and landowners involved. However, this debate is about something else, which is making sure that everyone can be involved. I mentioned at the committee that anyone with a social conscience, whether working in Eli Lilly or God knows where, should have the opportunity to invest in a climate fund that could result in forestry being grown in Ireland. Let us widen this pot. Let everyone be part of it.

We have heard the view of Coillte representatives that they need funds and access to funds. However, society needs access to the opportunity to invest in forestry. That vehicle needs to be created. That is what this debate has mushroomed into. How can we create a vehicle where society can invest in a fund in order that everyone can be part of this change process? I mentioned in my previous remarks that this is an special savings incentive account, SSIA, style policy. It is the idea that one invests in a government bond and one knows exactly where it is going. There would be an unbelievable buy-in if the Government led this and was involved in it, and a credit pertained to it. I made those comments at the agriculture committee and the reaction I got was quite amazing. People want the opportunity to be part of a story of change. They want the Government to provide them the vehicle to be part of it. I believe the passion is in the Department to do it. That is why officials published a forestry programme that has moved the payments from 15 to 20 years. That is why they have recognised the importance of getting the information out to the general farming and landowning community that they have the opportunity to invest. However, that circle needs to be pushed out now.

Some speakers mentioned that the next generation is the issue. People who are married, or have kids or whatever, want a society that will be there for them, and an environment that will be there for them. How can people invest to make sure that happens? That is all we are looking for here. The motion has been well drafted. I compliment the Senator for putting it forward, and I also compliment his help for putting it together. This is a significant proposal and young people have helped an older Senator to put together a really good motion.

They have helped a wise and old Senator to make sure we can do something right. I appeal to the Minister of State to take the motion on board. We will not oppose it and she knows that. She should come back to us. We have an idea that could work. It could be phenomenal if it is worked upon, and everybody can be part of this focus for change.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. This is a timely motion, and I commend Senator Boyhan on bringing such positive proposals forward. We need to ensure that communities and environmental ambition are at the heart of any proposal that emerges in this regard. The motion does not make any direct reference to the topical Coillte joint venture but it is important to take the opportunity to raise it once again. For us in Sinn Féin the best approach to afforestation is supporting farmers, public bodies and Coillte. It was highlighted during the recent Gresham House debacle that this type of vehicle was required to allow Coillte access to forestry grants-premiums again but the Minister has since acknowledged that the new State aid rules that came into effect on January 1 may allow Coillte direct access to these supports. In terms of the recent joint venture he must, in the first instance, issue a new shareholder letter of expectation instructing Coillte not to proceed with any similar ventures. He should then consider all options for disengaging from the Gresham House venture. The Coillte deal will see millions of euro in public funds used to subsidise the purchase of huge swathes of Irish land by a British investment company. The investment provided by Gresham House is completely unnecessary because if a workable forestry regulatory framework were in place farmers could simply plant for themselves. We have all heard how the deal was done behind closed doors and has been rightly criticised by a broad cross-section of stakeholders. It is a rare occasion when environmental NGOs and the farming lobbies have come together on a single point.

I hope it continues into the future. Such an occasion bears marking, particularly when all the stakeholders are opposed to such a deal.

We all agree that Ireland needs significant levels of forestry if we are to meet our climate obligations. As with everything to do with climate action, it cannot be done without the engagement and buy-in from local communities and farmers. A just transition is all about bringing local communities along with us. The Government has overseen the disengagement of those stakeholders from forestry and the Coillte proposal has not helped to mend those bad feelings.

There are problems with Coillte but it is part of a larger systemic problem with semi-State agencies. Other commercial semi-State bodies are in a similar bind. Replies to parliamentary questions tabled by my colleague, Deputy Ó Broin, revealed that the climate Act obligation on public bodies to pay heed to the climate action does not apply to semi-State bodies. That is of great concern to those of us who spent a long time on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the climate Act. We pointed out that semi-State bodies should be subject to the obligations of the climate Act. That means that the main polluting entities within Government control, Dublin Airport Authority, as the single biggest polluter, and Bord na Móna are not obliged.

The motion is about a national forestry fund, an idea that certainly merits discussion. As the wording of the motion highlights, there is no consensus on the type of model. Some research by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, UNFAO, reveals that some national forest funds are supported through general taxation while others are about investment opportunities. I accept Senator Paul Daly's concerns about potential risks with the proposal if it were to be funded through bonds. While many people are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis, many other people who have built up savings over the course of pandemic or at other times are looking around for sustainable investment opportunities. I think there is a pent-up demand for people to invest in sustainable opportunities rather than investing and fossil fuel companies such as BP and Shell which are posting record profits. The divestment campaign by 350.org was successful in getting many institutions, including sovereign wealth funds, universities and pension funds, to divest from investment in fossil fuels.

There are many lessons for us in how we address forestry and this country. The motion merits serious consideration as a possible route for us to meet our climate targets through afforestation and help people to do their bit in investing in sustainable industries rather than those dirty fossil fuels.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House this evening. I thank Senator Boyhan and the Independent Group for using their Private Members' time to discuss this very important matter. As was mentioned earlier, over 80% of this great country was once covered in forests. The current figure is just over 11.6%, and we have a significant target of 18% to reach by 2050. How we get near that target is an important conversation for us all to have. That is why this debate is so important. Our opinion is that it must involve a State-led fund targeted at furthering Irish-owned and managed forestry enterprise. Unfortunately, I am not a member of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and Marine, like most colleagues who are present tonight.

As part of this debate, it is important to discuss the recently proposed partnership between Coillte and a UK-based investment fund, Gresham House. In the opinion of the Labour Party, this is a bad deal, a bad concept and a bad idea for many reasons. The forestry sector has been crying out for assistance for years. As outlined in the motion, recent figures show that the Government is only reaching one quarter of its afforestation targets, with 2010 being the last year that more than 8,000 ha were planted. The partnership to which I refer has been opposed by many organisations, including the Irish Farmers Association. The Irish Wildlife Trust called it a scandal and the Irish Forest Owners have described it as being not in the best interests of rural areas.

Why is the Government satisfied with a deal that so many of those who work in the sector and people directly affected by it are not happy with? The Labour Party understands that a new approach must be taken in respect of forestry. This country is nowhere near meeting its targets, and is unlikely to meet them by bringing in foreign investors to buy up Irish land. It is not a solution we can support.

In a recent debate on forestry in the Dáil at which the Minister of State was present, my colleagues, Deputies Kelly and Sherlock, stated that the Government should support the industry directly by means of the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, investment of new capital or a fund such as that proposed by Senator Boyhan this evening, rather than outsourcing all the profits to the private sector. Such funds would be used to far greater effect by increasing our level of afforestation through Irish-based investment and supporting Irish farmers to plant their lands.

This debate presents an opportunity to raise the disaster that was ash dieback, a matter that has still not been fully addressed. Farmers whose crops were affected by that disease need to be given proper financial assistance and encouraged to resume planting. The Irish Farmers Association's farm forestry chair, Jason Fleming, recently welcomed a commitment from the Minister of State to review the ash dieback scheme this year. Mr. Fleming is quoted as saying that affected farmers have been waiting long enough and need to know when the review will be completed. He stated:

Ash dieback has had a devastating impact on ash plantations and therefore has had a significant effect on the commercial value of the timber crop. The current scheme is wholly inadequate and does not compensate farmers for the financial loss incurred by the disease.

Teagasc estimates that up to 90% of ash trees will succumb to this disease. That will have serious implications not only for timber production but also in the context of amenities, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, landscape and culture. Without proper financial encouragement from the State provided by means of a national forestry fund, as has been discussed here tonight, who will blame these landowners for never getting involved again? I support the information campaign on the forestry industry to which Senator Paul Daly referred.

A timely workable forestry licensing scheme is the foundation that is urgently needed for any afforestation in this country. Those in the industry say that, despite recent improvements, this continues to be the biggest drawback for them. It is a major drawback for those thinking about using their lands and investing in afforestation.

We welcome this timely debate. The need for investment and assistance in the industry is urgent. The environmental crisis calls for urgent State intervention. It is our opinion that the domestic industry is more than capable of once again increasing afforestation in this country given such investment and assistance, and given clear timely licences to achieve it. We thank the Independent Group for tabling the motion. I look froward to the Minister of State offering a positive response.

I thank Senator Boyhan and his colleagues for tabling the motion and giving us the opportunity to discuss forestry in the Seanad. It also gives me the opportunity to comment on some of the points raised and outline some of the ongoing developments in the sector.

I welcome the interest in this matter, which is evident from the contributions that have been made. I emphasise once again the importance of the forestry sector not only to the Irish economy but, as Senator Boyhan highlighted, to the Irish people. I also highlight the important role of forestry in the delivery of our targets under the climate action plan.

In this debate, recent debates in the Dáil and at meetings of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and Marine, Deputies and Senators have been united in their support for increased afforestation for the benefit of farmers, rural communities and our climate, as well as for other matters, including water quality and biodiversity. This is what the Government is seeking to achieve by means of the new forestry programme. We have very ambitious climate targets with forestry planting at the very centre of these ambitions. The Government has committed €1.3 billion to the new forestry programme, with substantially higher payments for farmers. This is largest funded forestry programme ever introduced by any Government. It will give rise to an increase in forestry premiums of between 46% and 66%. It has been designed to ensure that farmers, as the primary investors, will be the primary beneficiaries.

Farmers will receive 20 years of tax-free premium payments, compared to 15 years of premium payments for non-farmers. In addition to receiving this extra 33% in premium payments, farmers who plant new forests will also receive the single farm payment on lands converted to forestry. Other private landowners will not receive that payment.

The new forestry programme is also designed to put an emphasis on close-to-nature forestry and will include a small-scale native woodland scheme, which we discussed at length in this Chamber last year, whereby farmers will be paid to plant mixed native broadleaf forests of up to 1 ha in size on farms and along watercourses without the need for a forestry licence. This is another clear incentive to our farmers to consider planting their land.

Comprehensive public consultation has taken place over the past year on the development of a national forestry strategy. This resulted in the publication of a shared national vision for the role of trees and forests in Ireland to 2050 together with a new draft strategy which sets out a clear set of objectives for the role of trees and forests in Ireland between now and 2030. The new forestry programme for 2023 to 2027 will be the primary means by which the strategy is implemented over the next five years. This forestry programme is subject to state aid approval from the European Commission. The previous state aid guidelines for the forestry sector expired on 31 December 2022 and have been replaced with a revised version as of January 2023. The introduction of these revised guidelines meant that a formal application for state aid approval could not be made before January 2023. My Department is continuing to engage with the European Commission to get this state aid approval process completed as soon as possible.

The launch of a new forestry programme will offer a great opportunity to improve the perception of forestry among a very broad range of stakeholders. There is now a real opportunity to ensure that the forestry sector can deliver on the legitimate expectations of all stakeholders. As such, it incentivises a broad range of planting options such as native forest creation on public lands, amenity forests, NeighbourWood schemes, woodland improvement schemes and woodland environment fund actions. However, it is also important that those with an interest in the sector recognise these growing expectations of what forestry can and should deliver for society from carbon sequestration to the protection of watercourses and biodiversity and the creation of employment and the displacement of concrete and steel in construction. With the right approach, I am confident that forestry has the potential to achieve all of those goals.

While the precise timing of the state aid approval is a matter for the European Commission, farmers can still engage with their planners in the meantime to have much of the preparatory work done so that they can officially submit their application once the programme is open. I urge farmers to do just that.

On forest licensing, I am pleased to report that the system is now working well, with turnaround times for licences substantially improved. When I first became Minister of State, the debate was all about felling licences. People were asking where the licences were and telling us to sort out the backlog. In one sense, I am glad the debate is now about afforestation. It looks to the future and is about getting trees in the ground. I welcome that. It is a significant shift in the debate and shows the improvement the Government has brought about in two and a half years. To emphasise how efficient the licensing system has become, I will note that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine issued 4,713 licences in 2022, over 1,200 more than the number of applications received last year. In August 2021, we had 6,700 applications on hand. We now have just over 2,500, a figure that continues to reduce each week. The number of licences issued for both timber felling and forest roads reached a record level for any single year in 2022. There are now more than 1,000 approved afforestation contracts, with approximately 7,300 ha ready for planting as of now. We have seen real progress here. We want to continue that push and to become ever more efficient. Part of that involves confidence in the sector and among farmers. I absolutely support a promotional campaign, advertising and whatever it takes for farmers to understand the benefits of afforestation for their farms and their pockets.

While the new forestry strategy and programme are not yet finalised, the Department has introduced an interim afforestation and roads scheme so that those with valid approvals under the old forestry programme can plant and build roads in line with the new programme. Under these interim arrangements, which have been put in place pending approval of the new programme, those with valid existing licences can now proceed to plant at the higher rates under the new programme. In the first month of this year alone, we have already received 137 applications to proceed with planting under the interim arrangements. That corresponds to 884 ha. More is expected for the rest of this spring planting season. We have also received 26 applications to proceed with road construction under the interim arrangements. We are committed to keeping this critically important sector moving through this relatively short period between the old and new programmes. Felling and non-grant-aided road licences will continue to issue and the Department's significantly enhanced licensing system will continue to progress existing afforestation applications up to the point of approval, pending state aid approval. Under the new programme, farmers, as the biggest landowners in the country, will have the opportunity to play the most significant role in the creation of new forests. We hope they will take advantage of the generous incentives on offer to help to drive increasing afforestation.

The afforestation targets set out in the forestry programme and the climate action plan are ambitious and will require the input of all stakeholders. The Government has asked Coillte to get back into afforestation to help the country to meet its ambitious forestry targets. That is why Coillte has been exploring all available options to support the creation of new forests in Ireland. Under its new forestry strategic vision, Coillte has stated its aim to grow 100,000 ha of new forests by 2050. This vision will be key in supporting the delivery of one third of Ireland's afforestation target and providing a carbon sink for 18 million tonnes of CO2. As Senators are aware, Coillte has been precluded from directly receiving premiums following the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union and, under the existing forestry programme, could not draw down premiums itself. As I have said, my Department is currently working intensively to secure full state aid approval for the new forestry programme. Without prejudice to this ongoing deliberative process, clarity will be sought on specific scenarios and details of possible claimants under this programme. This includes a possibility for Coillte to be a direct beneficiary of forest premiums under the programme.

I am acutely aware of the concerns that have been expressed regarding Coillte's involvement with the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, and Gresham House. It has been debated at length over recent weeks. Coillte has partnered with ISIF to establish the Irish Strategic Forestry Fund as one of a number of models it intends to deploy in order to enable afforestation at a meaningful scale. However, as my colleague, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, and I have repeated, our preferred option is for farmers to plant forestry on their own land. That is what we have designed the new forestry programme to achieve. To be clear, Coillte will not sell any existing publicly owned forests to the fund nor will it seek to purchase any public land on behalf of the fund. I wish to put that on the record of the Seanad. Any land purchased by the fund will already be in private ownership. No private landowner will be forced to sell land to the fund. The total area of new forest to be planted under this particular arrangement is 3,500 ha, a tiny percentage of our overall ambition. Building afforestation momentum in a sector that has been stagnant is necessary but there are various options to reach our ambitions. That is why the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, and I have asked Coillte to examine how it can work more closely with the State as well as with farmers and local communities. Coillte has outlined to us that this fund is just one of a number of models it intends to deploy to contribute to the State's overall forestry targets.

Our main focus in the Department is now on securing EU state aid approval in order to introduce the new programme as quickly as possible. We have a job of work to do to change the perception around forestry but increasing our afforestation rates will be good for the environment, for our climate targets and, critically, for farm family incomes. With regard to public investment in forestry, there is merit to teasing out this issue further in the coming months. I am all ears to any ideas - one was suggested today - that will increase the number of trees in the ground regardless of whether they are to be funded publicly or privately or whether they involve citizen-led action or investment from State agencies or local authorities. All such actions are positive for forestry and climate action. We are currently working on many such actions through existing initiatives and the new forestry programme. I look forward to continuing to work together with farmers and all stakeholders to deliver on the new forestry strategy and forestry programme for the benefit of all.

Senator Lombard made a statement and I wrote it down because it struck me. He said "People want the opportunity to be part of a story of change". I thought that was very eloquently put and is something I am going to use again if he does not mind. I thank Senator Boyhan and his colleagues for bringing forward this motion and for enabling the debate. I thank the Senators for their input.

The Minister of State and I have had a very brief conversation about trees in general but the principle of afforestation is very close to my heart. Ireland is one of the most biospherically depleted countries in the European Union. It always strikes me when travelling through the country how empty it is of woodlands and trees, particularly native species and the deciduous mix we should have. I wholeheartedly support what Senator Boyhan has proposed. I take great encouragement from the Minister of State's response and all the various initiatives that are in place. I wish everybody the best of luck with it. I look forward to a time when we have a landscape that is back to something like it ought to look like and an environment that we should be living in. It is so depleted at the moment we can only improve from where we are.

I will not welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber because she is part of it. My colleague Senator Paul Daly has led on this today. He said we will not be opposing this motion. I compliment Senator Boyhan on bringing forward what is really a crucial issue and a crucial debate. Discussions like this are very important. Forestry is going to be important as we go forward. Environmentally, if we want to keep some of our farming methods going we have to in some way account for our carbon count. We cannot have the best of every world but we can have the best of a lot of them if we go with this policy. Most people would agree that the deal might not have been the best in the world but it is up to us all to work together with the farming community. I believe the farming community will get really involved in this if we have good meetings and good explanatory policies. We now have a situation where people can be paid €1,100 per hectare for up to 20 years for native broadleaf trees. Two or three hectares could be put in by lots of farmers. From talking to quite a number of them, it is clear they think this is significant. We can do huge things with woodlands as well, which can be very enjoyable for people. We should not forget that aspect of it.

I am willing to accept the words of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Minister of State. As has already been said, we have announced a huge package of €1.3 billion for forestry development. Both the Minister and the Minister of State have been saying that farmers will be central to the success of our overall forestry strategy. The Government has been clear in its policy direction, the design of the forestry programme and the climate action plan that farmers will have the biggest opportunity to deliver on our forestry targets and benefit from our forestry payments but we have to deliver on that. Sometimes when you talk to farmers individually on the ground they can talk a lot more than they might at a public meeting. They want to invest in this and want to be part of it. They understand that there must be environmental changes but we need to bring them along the road with us. I was watching part of this debate when I was doing something else in my office. I think it was Senator Daly who spoke about our carbon count and all the carbon count that is in our hedges and trees at the moment. It is very important that this is taken into the overall calculations.

I do not mean to continue this debate any longer. It is good that we have had the debate. Going forward, we have to work out a programme, crucially, with the farmers and the farming community. I have no doubt they will engage positively. Going back many years, farmers really got into the first environmental schemes we had and were very enthused by them. They made great improvements to their lands, their hedges and everything else at the time. If farmers are treated fairly, if we talk to them plainly and fairly and offer them the proper incentives, I have absolutely no doubt they will engage. I am positive for the future. Whatever difficulties we have, I think we can definitely work them out.

As there are no other Senators presenting, I call Senator Boyhan to respond to the debate.

I thank all the contributors, including Senators Paul Daly, Lombard, Boylan, Wall, Clonan and Murphy, for their very constructive contributions. They touched on many points, some of which I did not even touch on. It has been a very positive debate. There have not been that many Senators in the Chamber but that does not take from the very high quality of this debate and engagement. I thank the Senators who took the time to be here and engage. I also note the importance of Senators Daly, Lombard, Boylan and myself being here. We are on the agricultural panel and the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine so we have discussed this at great length. I take this opportunity to again thank the Minister of State, the Minister and their officials for the huge engagement with us. It is a constructive committee that is represented by all political groups in the House and it has done great work. It has had some genuine concerns and we have had robust debate but I think everybody is on board with realising our targets.

It was echoed in all the contributions here tonight that farmers' engagement is central to all of this. The solution is around farmers, landowners and the potential for that. That has to be central. That is the message we have to get out. I am very conscious every time I stand up here that it is important we hone in on our messaging and communicate our messaging. We should not only say it in here but leave here and continue to communicate. That is the art and the essence of politics, that we communicate messages. That brings me to the next point. A lot of people suggested that the Minister of State look at the idea, and she spoke favourably of it, of a public engagement and consultation. That is important and people need to know that.

Going back to one of our proposals around this investment scheme and options, it is for everyone. Senator Lombard is right. The Minister of State quoted him there. It is about people feeling they can get involved at various levels. It is not rural versus urban. There are benefits to forestry from sequestration and all of that. It is about our future. It is about being ambitious. It is about making farmers and others central to this plan and this vision. It is about keeping the focus that we set. The Government has committed to planting 22 million trees a year between 2020 and 2040. We are now in 2023. As I said earlier, that is 85,000 trees every single working day. That is an enormous challenge. It is important that we keep our ambition high and keep the focus on the challenges.

I join with Senators who spoke about the importance of carbon credits, particularly for farmers and hedgerows. It is a really important point Senator Daly made and is one I support. Another message I want to get out is that we have to seriously support farmers in terms of an audit and some sort of credits for their hedgerows on their farms. There are a load of biodiversity and environmental benefits from those hedgerows so it will tick off a number of issues. As has been said, it is important. It is about opportunities. It is about investment. It is about support and about people wanting to be together to make and realise our targets. We have talked a lot in the last few weeks about the Gresham House investment. It is clear that this has stirred up something in the Irish people. They want to be involved. They want to be part of this natural resource.

I will again leave the Minister of State with another call, although it is a bit beyond the parameters of what we are here to talk about. We do not have a national forestry authority. Coillte is not a national forestry authority. It plays a very significant role and I am fully supportive of it but this is a natural resource. Timber and forestry is a natural resource and yet we do not have a national forestry authority. That is something to look at because we need to have a level playing field for the public sector and the private sector. Rightly or wrongly, it is perceived that Coillte has better advantages. Maybe it prepares better places in terms of its licensing and all that; I simply do not know. We have to have a level playing pitch for the private and the public sector. That is important. I will leave the Minister of State with that call to look seriously at a national authority for forestry. I again thank all the people who spoke in favour and indicated their support for this motion.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 9.30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 7.20 p.m. go dtí 9.30 a.m., Déardaoin, 9 Feabhra 2023.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.20 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 9 February 2023.
Barr
Roinn