Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food debate -
Wednesday, 22 Apr 2026

• Debates
• Find a debate
  • Dáil debates
  • Seanad debates
  • Committee debates
• Find a vote
  • Dáil votes
  • Seanad votes
  • Committee votes
• Parliamentary questions
  • Written questions
  • Oral questions
• Search tips
• Utterances having an adverse effect

Definition of Farmer within the Afforestation Scheme: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

No apologies have been received. I wish to let members known that the 11th report from the Committee of Selection, dated yesterday, 21 April, discharged Deputy Danny Healy-Rae from the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. He will be replaced by Deputy Michael Cahill.

Before we begin, I remind everyone that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity.

Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as those giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter as a result. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in this committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in public meetings from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in the member having their online access removed. All the members taking part are here in the room at present.

In regard to the agenda for today, the first session relates to the definition of "farmer" in the context of the afforestation scheme for the period 2023 to 2027. The committee will be hearing from officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. With us is Mr. Barry Delany, director of forestry. Cuirim fáilte roimhe. He is joined by Mr. Seamus Dunne, senior inspector and Dr. Robert Mooney, principal officer from the forestry division. Cuirim fáilte romhaibh.

The opening statement has been circulated to members. A question arose previously regarding the definition of "farmer" and who is eligible for the various levels of grant aid. Members wanted to get an understanding of that definition and the implications it has for people accessing the scheme. I will give Mr. Delany five minutes to go through the statement and then we will take questions from members.

Mr. Barry Delany

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach. I wish a good afternoon to the committee members. I will run through the statement. There are some useful facts in this short statement. It would be useful to read it into the record. I will go through it now.

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak to it this afternoon about our forestry programme, the mid-term review and, specifically, those changes to the forestry farmer definition. The Government confirmed its commitment to forestry by making an allocation of €93 million in budget 2026. The Department is determined to support the forestry sector, which continues to grow, as a significant part of Ireland's national infrastructure.

It is important to recognise that afforestation is a voluntary land use choice for landowners but also a very attractive option, considering that the current forestry programme now offers over 20 schemes and measures, with attractive rates and supports, providing a huge range of choice for the creation of new forests and the sustainable management of existing forests, forest roads, technology, the conservation of native woodlands and also climate-resilient afforestation.

The Department is continuously striving to improve systems and make them more efficient. Licensing turnaround times continue to improve and the vast majority of licence applications are now processed in under six months. Storm-related cases are turned around even faster. We currently have nearly 4,500 ha of new forests licensed and available for the planting of new forests and we will continue introducing key outcomes from the recently completed forestry programme mid-term review during the year, including financial actions in relation to fencing, roads and agroforestry, which members are all aware of at this stage. These actions are designed to combat the issues and concerns raised during the review and to ensure a renewed confidence in the forestry programme.

The requirement for simplification of the definition of a farmer in order to secure the attractive 20-year premium is a result from the outcomes of the recently completed mid-term review of the forestry programme. The feedback received from stakeholders and farmer organisations in particular, along with their registered foresters, indicated the previous process was too onerous for farmers. The purpose of this change was to reduce the administrative burden on farmers when they are applying for forestry but also to ensure we still have a protective mechanism in place. Going forward, a farmer must have passed the Department’s active farmer check and received a valid payment under the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, scheme prior to the completion of the planting of their forest to be eligible to receive forestry premiums for a period of 20 years. Farmers who take over a contract are no longer required to be engaged in farming on at least 3 ha in the State as this requirement was not aligned with conditions that apply under the BISS. To qualify for the BISS, a farmer must have at least one eligible hectare of land.

The forestry programme contains its own bespoke farmer definition because, under current afforestation scheme rules, farmers are entitled to the 20 years of premium payments following the planting of their forests compared with 15 years for non-farmers. There have been historical instances, for example where larger companies have attempted to qualify as a farmer and claim the differential across their contracts. Therefore, there is a need to have a protective mechanism in place. As we are bound by state aid rules, it is not possible to retrospectively apply the new farmer definition and the new definition will not have any impact on existing afforestation contracts between the forest owner and the Department. We believe this measure will contribute to making forestry a more attractive land use option for farmers and reduce some of the red tape for anyone who is taking over a forestry contract.

The €55 million reconstitution scheme for private forest owners affected by Storm Darragh and Storm Éowyn is now open for applications and the Department’s online iNET system has been open since last week. This scheme is an important support for forest owners in restoring productive forests following storm damage. It ensures affected areas can be replanted in a timely manner to support the long-term sustainability of the sector. Our very successful planting on public lands initiative has progressed from awareness raising to active delivery, with all Departments in this State having agreed to include the planting of forests in their respective climate action implementation plans. Thirty-three public bodies have formally engaged to date and 18 public bodies are progressing or preparing formal applications. This represents approximately 338 ha, while a further 15 bodies are in development through site identification and feasibility work.

The final report of the timber in construction steering group will be brought to Cabinet shortly. This includes recommendations for action to support the increased use of wood in construction, which will support the house construction sector supported by wood grown in Ireland. We are committed to actively implement our annual communications and engagement plans to make sure the right opportunities are available to the right landowner at the right time.

I look forward to the discussion, a Chathaoirligh, and to providing clarification on any questions members may have.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Delany. The question as to who is a farmer or what is a farmer is a massive one but we are very much focused on how the Department is applying that definition in the scheme.

Deputy Joe Cooney

I thank the officials for coming in and for the opening statement. We are told the new definition of a farmer within the scheme will reduce the amount of paperwork for people taking part in the scheme. However, is there a risk the changes being introduced could lead to fewer people taking part, especially young farmers?

Mr. Barry Delany

I thank the Deputy. We did a long consultation for the mid-term review. One of the elements coming out from the farmer organisations was that where people had inherited land and younger people had taken over land, they were running into difficulties in that the previous definition of a farmer under the forestry programme required them to meet the active farmer definition and have had the BISS for the previous four years. That was making it very difficult for people to meet the definition. It was quite a high bar and meant sons and daughters of farmers were not meeting the criteria. This definition, which requires them to meet the active farmer definition and have had one year of the BISS just before they plant, will make it much easier and probably more accessible for them. That is what we are seeing and that was the request from the farm organisations as well as the registered foresters who work on behalf of a lot of these applicants.

Deputy Joe Cooney

In what way did it make it easier for them?

Mr. Barry Delany

To meet the criteria. In the programme that launched in September 2023, if you were a landowner submitting to us who wanted to get the farmer premium payments for 20 years, you had to meet the active farmer definition in the BISS and then had to have received the BISS for the previous four years as well. We have tried to align the definition within forestry with that of the BISS. The requirement to have had four years of payments under the BISS has been removed. That means it is much more accessible, in particular for those younger farmers, people who have inherited land and others who may have been leasing their land and are now bringing it back into their system again. It was to try to take account of those situations.

Deputy Joe Cooney

Is there any fear it could prevent young people from taking part in the scheme? What are the officials' views on that?

Mr. Barry Delany

I would say the change that was introduced by the former Minister of State will actually bring more people in. It facilitates the younger farmer coming in because he will meet the definition much more quickly. A young farmer who has taken over, inherited or bought a farm will now meet that definition in one year, whereas previously it would have taken the current year plus another four years of payments to be eligible. If a farmer started now under the system in place before the mid-term review, it would be four years before he could apply to the Department to be able to get the farmer payment, whereas now once he has that land in his name and meets the criteria for an active farmer under the BISS and has received one BISS payment before planting, he will get the 20-year payment rather than the 15-year one because he will meet the criteria for being a farmer.

Deputy Joe Cooney

Why does the definition of a farmer apply to this scheme and not to other Department schemes?

Mr. Barry Delany

A lot of the schemes do not necessarily differentiate between what they pay. They pay by applicant. I will not go into all the other schemes. The difference here is that in the forestry programme for 2014 to 2020 there was no difference between a farmer and a non-farmer in that both just received 15 years of payments. It did not matter whether someone was an active farmer or just owned land. We did not differentiate. Again, through extensive consultation the landowners felt that, in order for them to be better able to benefit - and at the time the Government wanted to focus on farmers planting their land - we added an extra five years to the premia. As a consequence of implementing that since 2023, we were seeing some of the difficulties and pitfalls that were happening for a number of farmers to meet the quite difficult criteria that were in place, in particular the previous four years of BISS payments. We have removed that and the feedback is quite positive from the farm organisations and registered foresters.

Deputy Joe Cooney

I thank Mr. Delany. I welcome the €55 million reconstitution scheme for private forestry owners. The officials were saying it is opening up fairly soon. What is that scheme going to cover for forestry owners?

Mr. Barry Delany

If it is acceptable to the Cathaoirleach, I can discuss the windblow. We got approval for that €55 million scheme back in December. The former Minister of State had said that applicants could proceed, do the work, remove the material and move it on and still apply once the online scheme opened. It is now open and we are receiving a number of applications. We are training the registered foresters on how they can make their submissions and a number are already doing that. That means that once they clear, remove and replant, we will provide the payments to them for reconstituting that.

If they go back with something similar to a native forest or woodland, they will receive a grant rate of €6,744 per ha that they put back in. If they go back in with more mixed commercial high forest, then they are getting €3,858 per ha. It is a suite. If they go back with other diverse broadleaf plantations, it is a little bit more.

Deputy Joe Cooney

I thank Mr. Delany.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I thank Mr. Delany for his opening statement. At the core of this is the active farmer check. What is the definition of that from the point of view of a farmer doing forestry only?

Mr. Barry Delany

I thank the Deputy. We have published a "frequently asked questions" on this. We have launched the mid-term review and those documents are there. We will share them with the committee.

In the broader sense, to pass the Department's active farmer check:

'Active farmer' means the applicant claiming payments on the land must be the person farming and/or managing the land. Farming activities may include meeting a minimum stocking rate ... producing crops, cutting hay/silage, maintaining landscape features. See BISS terms and conditions ...

They must also have received a valid payment under the BISS. As members know, since 2008, forest owners are receiving BISS payments. If it is a sole forest owner who is receiving BISS, then they should be able to meet that.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I accept that a consequence of the change was that when a person had to receive BISS for four years to get the payment it was possibly onerous, particularly for someone who inherited land. However, the other side of that, and the unintended consequence of making it easier, could be something that I know examples of in my own area. People buy land who are not farmers and have had nothing to do with farming ever. They go in and buy the land and after a year they can basically get the 20-year premium. Some of them were doing it and waiting the four years or if they did not wait the four years, they started and only got the 15-year premium.

No one is making any more land. It is a scarce resource; we see the price of it going up all the time. Most farmers, particularly young people - young farmers were mentioned - if they want to go into farming, it is not for forestry. It is actually to farm and have cattle, in most cases, or sheep. That is the lifestyle they want and it is what they choose to do. It is made difficult for them to be able to do that because non-farmers or people from other sectors see it as an investment opportunity to be able to buy land, hold it for a year, make a bit of hay on it or whatever. They are then a farmer and can get the 20-year premium the same as the other person. It means more competition is coming into that sector for the young farmer to try and buy land. In many places, we see stiff competition for young people who want to go into farming because they cannot buy or get access to land. The fear I had when I saw this definition and change coming out, is that it would further exacerbate that situation. There would be more competition put into place where more farmers would find themselves competing with people who are non-farmers, who are buying it to put forestry on it and would be entitled to get the 20-year premium, which would be a further enhancement that they did not have before this happened. Do the witnesses understand where that is coming from?

Mr. Barry Delany

We can see that, yes. We would have looked at the considerations. The reality is there are three or four parties we are trying to deal with here. Farmers, as landowners, are the primary party. They are the people who own most of the land and who we believe, through a sustainable integration of forestry on their farms, are the people who are going to help us deliver a lot of our targets. They are the primary parties we were trying to deal with here. When we saw there was a bit of a speed bump for them in getting over the line of a licence with the 20-year premium approval, that was our primary focus. Then you have farmers as investors - that is slightly different - and other private parties as planters of forests, who may be investors or private individuals doing that.

Our experience to date is that there is no deluge of people trying to buy that land. When you look at the cost-benefit analysis in respect of buying a hectare of land and you look at the competition, no matter what county it is, you will find there are probably other parties - more so on the dairy side than the forestry side - who are going to secure that land. From our point of view, we want anyone who is interested in planting trees to be facilitated in planting trees, but our focus is really on the farmer as a landowner and incentivising him to plant his own land in order to get that 20-year premium and not be impeded in any way in getting that.

Deputy Martin Kenny

One of the issues is that in many cases it is not the farmer. The farmer may apply. The witnesses sent us documentation in the past hour or two. I noticed in it that in 2025, 46% of the hectares planted were planted by farmers but 80% of the approvals were for farmers. That is something we have noted down through the years. Very often, farmers get the approval but the farmer is not the one who plants the land. They sell it on with the approval on it. That is another issue we need to deal with. People in rural communities want to maintain those communities. They want to maintain the livelihood in that community. When there are corporate interests or people who have no interest or part in that community coming in buying land and planting it, it is seen as speculation. It is something that grinds very hard on people living in many parts of the country.

Mr. Barry Delany

The point is that if a farmer receives his approval for 20 years and then he sells it on to a corporate interest, that corporate interest is not going to get the 20 years. It is not going to meet the criteria there. In regard to the figures I submitted, I apologise for the delay in this. This was to do with the former Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae's previous intervention here. There are some crossed wires as to whether we reply to the questions or give it back to the committee, but I wanted to make sure members had the replies here before today-----

Deputy Martin Kenny

I appreciate that.

Mr. Barry Delany

-----so I put them through. I spoke to the clerk and we will ensure that in regard to anything we need to clarify here, we will come back to the members much quicker. We understand that now, if that is okay with the Cathaoirleach.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I thank Mr. Delany, Mr. Dunne and Dr. Mooney. At the outset, I acknowledge the very significant work the outgoing Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, did in regard to forestry. I think he made progress. He was certainly passionate about it. I wanted to acknowledge that. That is politics and people move on, but it is important to acknowledge that and also the loss of Deputy Danny Healy-Rae from our committee. He certainly was a lively contributor. At the same time, I take this opportunity to welcome Deputy Michael Cahill, who is from the same neck of the woods in Kerry. That is important to say, given we are specifically talking about forestry.

I have two points for Mr. Delany. I was very encouraged by the item in his opening statement about the planting on public lands initiative and that 33 public bodies have formally engaged, which is progress. Things have moved on and there are 18 public bodies progressing formal participation. That refers to 338 ha. If Mr. Delany does not mind, if it is possible and agreeable with him and the Department, he might circulate who those bodies are, etc. It is important that we know. They would be in our communities and it is important that we know that information. I will leave him with that.

Planting on peatlands is very significant because previous Ministers had a different view from the last Minister of State, and we do not know what the next Minister of State is going to be doing, if there is even going to be a next Minister of State specifically for forestry. Will Mr. Delany touch on the soil deemed eligible for afforestation? How is this going to feed into the programme? He might also elaborate on the Department's allocation of €2.7 million for the PeatFor project. That is a really important project but there are a lot of peatlands and variations of peatlands within this country. A lot of people who own peatlands would be interested. Indeed, the State has some forestry in peatlands, historically, although it may be moving away from that. Mr. Delany might share that with the committee because the people listening in here will want to know.

I thank the witnesses for their correspondence, which we received today. Mr. Delany might touch on the peatlands thing in particular and if he can, and if it is agreeable with his officials and the Department, he might send us on the locations of the public bodies involved. The public bodies involved would even be enough, but it would be helpful to complete the circle of communication for us.

Mr. Barry Delany

I thank Senator Boyhan. In regard to the planting on public lands, the former Minister of State was very strong in trying to help us meet our targets by using public as well as private lands.

That was a crucial element. He managed to get a memo to Government on this. I well let Dr. Mooney outline where exactly we are at. We will give the committee the details of the parties involved.

Dr. Robert Mooney

To give a synopsis of where we are now, the previous Minister of State wrote to 82 organisations identified through the public assets database. He wrote to ask them to engage with us in the first phase of the roll-out of the planting on public lands initiatives, and 33 have already engaged with us. We are happy to share that information with the Senator. Eighteen have applications in and 15 are in the process of identifying land. We used the forest opportunities map to work with them one-on-one to ensure they can drive that forward. We have progressed to working with our colleagues in the Department of climate to also build that into climate action, biodiversity and other key public sector measures. It is a win-win opportunity for all of us. It is progressing really well. We are looking to engagement with CAROs and local authorities for a larger roll-out programme as well. We are happy to share that information with the Senator.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I thank Dr. Mooney. Will the witnesses comment on peat?

Mr. Barry Delany

I will hand over to the senior inspector and director, Mr. Dunne.

Mr. Seamus Dunne

We negotiated the previous programme and came up with an agreement around peat. Clearly, drained peats emit carbon and trees sequester carbon. There is a balance around the depth of peat. We have science to support planting on 30 cm or less of peat that this would be a net neutral or net sequesterer of carbon. That is where we are at the moment in the current programme. The PeatFor project is looking at this. As we all know, the whole area of forests is a complicated science, and depends on the rate they grow as broadleafs and conifers and how deep the peats are. We constantly examine this area to see what the carbon emission factors are to try to get the science right. The €2.7 million PeatFor project looks at exactly that. We have 800,000 ha of forest. We have to record our gas emissions as accurately as we possibly can. That is a large part of that project. Any change with any new programme will be advised by science.

Senator Victor Boyhan

It would be helpful for this committee to have a briefing memo on the PeatFor programme as it is now. I understand following the science but we need to keep it simple too because we need to communicate this message way beyond here. Given its technical nature, if the committee could get a briefing note it would be helpful for us to familiarise ourselves more with the PeatFor project. Would that be possible?

Mr. Barry Delany

Yes of course. We will pull that together. It is quite complex.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Mr. Delany will simplify it.

Mr. Barry Delany

I do not know what a tracker mortgage is. We will bring that to the attention of the committee.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I thank Mr. Delany.

An Cathaoirleach

Before we go to our next speaker, Deputy Cleere, I welcome new member Deputy Cahill. As mentioned earlier, the 11th report of the committee of selection brought about that change. I welcome him on board. Táim cinnte go bhfuil an-eolas agus an-taithí aige maidir le cúrsaí talmhaíochta agus beidh fáilte roimhe a bheith páirteach. I also want to make sure we acknowledge the very constructive role of Deputy Danny Healy-Rae who has been taking part in the committee throughout. There will be an opportunity for any member who wants to sit in to speak after members have had their opportunity to speak. I call Deputy Cleere.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

I echo the sentiments of the Cathaoirleach in wishing the former Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, the very best. He was very passionate about the forestry sector and brought huge energy to it. We had a roadshow recently in Kilkenny which was very well attended. He had a number of events around the country. I would like to formally acknowledge that. It is the first opportunity I have had to wish Deputy Michael Healy-Rae the best and also our good friend and colleague Deputy Danny Healy-Rae. He was a very active member of this committee and forceful at times. We wish Danny well.

Deputy Paul Lawless

You would not think you voted him out.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

I particularly want to welcome my good friend-----

(Interruptions).

An Cathaoirleach

One speaker.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

If I could, lads, this is not a blockade. I welcome my good friend and Kerry colleague Deputy Cahill who I know will be a fantastic addition to this committee. Agriculture in Kerry will be safe with him on board.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for coming in. I have specific questions, some of which were answered earlier. The allocation for 2026 was €93 million. What was it in 2025? Mr. Delany said, "The Government confirmed its commitment to forestry by making an allocation of €93 million in budget 2026".

Mr. Barry Delany

It was around €88 million or €89 million. The Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, secured an additional allocation for forestry in the budget for 2026 up to €93 million.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

Current afforestation targets in Ireland are, I think, 12% give or take.

Mr. Barry Delany

It is 11.8%.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

The plan is to get to 18% by 2050. Is that right?

Mr. Barry Delany

Our target is to get to 18% and others have specified 2050. The target for Ireland in the context of our land use, agricultural use and other targets is 18%.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

How are we performing in getting to that?

Mr. Barry Delany

It has been challenging. As I said at the start, forestry is a permanent land use change. It is a voluntary choice by the land owner. There are many other competing elements - the landowner can choose to avail of our schemes in agriculture, to lease land or to pursue other options. We are in that space. Our afforestation rates have been increasing year on year since 2021 following the licensing issues we had. In 2025, our planting was double what it was the year before. Now, we need more applicants. We are turning licences around in four to six months. The issue now is encouraging land owners to make this land use change. Dr. Mooney can explain further what we are trying to do in that space. It is working with the landowner organisations, the IFA and others, along with registered foresters, to deliver on this.

Dr. Robert Mooney

We have been looking carefully at our communication and engagement with farmers and also working with our key stakeholders and others promoting forestry in the sector. We are doing additional research to identify, as Mr. Delany indicated, the barriers not only to people starting that process but also to how we translate those leads into people actually applying for licences and getting them through the system into planting in the ground. We are identifying key barriers at each stage of that journey and trying to identify what levers we can then apply to help and support people and make that journey easier such as the licensing system which we have largely addressed in the past number of years. Now it is a matter of creating awareness and making that journey simpler, easier and better through targeted and focused engagement. It is not just a one-size-fits-all approach. We recognise different farmers and different landowners are interested in different opportunities. We are trying to get those opportunities in ways that are more effective and useful for them to help to guide them through that journey. It is a key piece of what we are doing.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

On simplification, there are over 20 schemes now with different rates and supports. What specific measures are being done to simplify it and make it easier for somebody to get involved in forestry?

Dr. Robert Mooney

We are working with the sector itself and registered foresters to help them to identify opportunities. If somebody comes to say they have land and an idea, we are trying to encourage them and guide the landowner or farmer into what is suitable for the land and what will be most suitable for them. Instead of all the different forest schemes, it is largely one or two areas and guiding them into them. We have developed what we are calling personas - people interested in forestry for commercial reasons, environmental or climate reasons or investment. We are looking at what opportunities suit people in a better way and then targeting those specific schemes at them.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

When somebody applies for a licence, it can take five or six months to get approval.

Is there a specific time period in which they have to plant after getting approved or is it open-ended? Will the witnesses provide clarity on that?

Mr. Barry Delany

If someone receives a valid licence from the Department, it is valid for five years. We changed that from the previous programme, where it was three years.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

Is that for all of the 20 different types of schemes?

Mr. Barry Delany

Yes. They have five years. In talking to the farm organisations and the registered foresters, they say that if someone has a licence but they do not plant within two years, it is probably going to be very challenging to get them to plant subsequently because they have other options and time moves on. Again, this was just to facilitate people who have land leased and who are in a situation where they cannot break the lease for a year or two. This gives them the opportunity. We do not want to have to extend their licence or ask them to reapply when they already have approval.

Deputy William Aird

I welcome the witnesses. I thank the former Minister of State with responsibility for forestry, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, who did tremendous work. I do not know any other Minister on the public record who did such good work in as short a time as he did. He said he would get money for afforestation after Storm Éowyn, and he got it. He never rowed back on peaty soils, and he achieved a huge transformation on that. I think we will see trees on peaty soils, and if we do, it is as a result of the work he did. I do not know of any other Minister who picks up the phone and rings the people I know he rang in my area with regard to afforestation, encouraging them and asking about Storm Éowyn. I never saw it happen before. I am disappointed. It is a pity.

I also want to allude to what Deputy Cleere said about Deputy Danny Healy-Rae, and the Deputy will take no umbrage on this. I voted to take Deputy Danny Healy-Rae off this committee. I never thought that would happen to me in politics. It never happened to me in all of my life as a member of Laois County Council. I never had to do what I have to do now. I am whipped under a party, and I am made to do things that I detest doing. I did not like it. It hurts me to see somebody like that taken off a committee, it does not matter who it is. We all work together in this committee, and I do not like that sort of politics. I call it dirty politics. I welcome Deputy Michael Cahill again.

I will move to questions. What safeguards are in place to prevent the exclusion of genuine part-time or transitioning farmers who fall outside the strict BISS time requirements?

Mr. Barry Delany

I will follow on from Deputy Cleere's piece. There are some 4,500 ha of licences available, which is 500 people. We wrote to all of those, and the former Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, rang a significant number of them to ask why they had not planted yet and to say that they needed to plant. We are following up on that as well. As of today, it is less onerous than it was previously. In the programme launched in 2023, for those parties that the Deputy mentions, it is now less onerous on them to meet our criteria in that they do not have to have the four years of previous BISS payments. That is what was happening to the parties just mentioned by the Deputy. If they had inherited land or the land was leased, and if they took that back into their name and applied for the BISS, they would have to do it for four years. That is where the Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, was listening to the stakeholders, in particular the farm organisations, to change that and remove the onerous four-year requirement that was there - it was there for a particular reason - to facilitate those particular people, the genuine farmers.

Deputy William Aird

Mr. Delany said that the new definition reduces the administrative burden. Can he quantify how much red tape has been removed as opposed to simply shifted into another compliance system? I ask for a short answer to that.

Mr. Barry Delany

It comes into the form 2, payment, section. When you have planted your forest, we then make the determination as to whether you are a farmer. Previously, we had to check back through a number of years, and then go back to our colleagues in BISS to see if people had the previous four years and met the other criteria. It is now a simple situation: are you on BISS and do you meet the active farmer definition? Then we move on. It is much simpler from our point of view, and from the farmer's point of view.

Deputy William Aird

What specific anti-avoidance mechanisms are now in place under the revised definition to ensure corporate entities or large companies cannot still exploit the 20-year premium difference?

Mr. Barry Delany

There is a suggestion that is going to happen but, in our experience, that is not what happens. In a lot of cases, the corporate entities that are buying land do not even submit for the premium. They are doing it for pensions or other things, and they do not even come to us for a premium. They just get their licence and plant. We will report back to this committee-----

Deputy William Aird

They are outside of the Department’s remit altogether.

Mr. Barry Delany

No, they come to us and apply for a licence to plant, but in some cases they do not seek the premium on the grants.

Deputy William Aird

They are just planting.

Mr. Barry Delany

They want to get a licence to plant.

Deputy William Aird

Of course, the Department does not mind who plants or whether they are companies just as long as they plant. Is that correct?

Mr. Barry Delany

We welcome all people who will plant trees and help us meet our targets. To go back to the start, in this programme, we want to encourage farmers to plant their own land and have it as part of a sustained model. It is not to plant their entire farm, but to plant 7 ha or 8 ha to help them if they are sheep farmers, for example. Cattle are doing okay at the moment. It is about helping their income.

Deputy William Aird

We still see the large companies doing that, but there is nothing we can do about it.

Mr. Barry Delany

It is not that they are going to come in and swarm the system in terms of farmer definition. We are not seeing that. We will update the committee.

Deputy William Aird

They are taking the land. That is what they are doing. They are buying up the land.

With afforestation remaining a voluntary land use choice and with over 4,300 ha already licensed but not yet planted, what evidence does the Department have that the revised farmer definition will increase planting uptake rather than simply reclassifying existing applicants?

Mr. Barry Delany

When the mid-term review was launched, it included the farmer definition, but there were other changes regarding fencing, agroforestry and roads. What we are seeing now is that there is a bit of an uptick with people who had licences in hand and had not proceeded. We can see now that there are more people coming in who, in the remaining weeks of the planting season, will be trying to get planted and get the new rates. Whether it is the farmer definition or the increased grant rates for roads, fencing and so on, we are seeing an uptick. In other words, for the 4,500 ha that are available, we are hoping to see more of those come in. As the Deputy knows, the former Minister of State spoke to many of the farmers directly, and we are following up on them. If the committee will allow it, Dr. Robert Mooney can update us on what we are specifically trying to do with those parties.

Deputy William Aird

He can come in during the next round. My time is up.

Senator Joanne Collins

I thank the witnesses for attending. I have one or two questions. I will fit in the whole forestry thing, although I may be pedantic about everything. I will state one thing first, which concerns voluntary land use. You cannot really say that it is voluntary when a certain section of these landowners would have had the land passed down to them and they are stuck within that contract and cannot get out. I want to start with that.

Regarding the actions on fencing, roads and so on, I am assuming those actions are grants. Are those grants included in the €93 million, or is there an extra grant? Are they all built into that €93 million?

Mr. Barry Delany

In the mid-term review and the new programme, the Minister secured €3.5 million to facilitate those additional costs that are going to come. It is for grants primarily, but in addition, there are some premium updates for agroforestry as well.

Senator Joanne Collins

That is perfect. I have one other question about the 15 years and the 20 years. I am of the understanding that the aim is to get as much forestry as we can. Why would the Department not just give 20 years to all? I can see one side of it, the corporate side, and then the farming side. However, if they are going to do it anyway and if we want more forestry, would the Department not give them all the 20-year premium? Mr. Delany said companies are coming in that are not even looking for the premium. As an example, if I did not have the BISS, did not have an active farm, and I decided to plant but I am only getting 15 years, in order to incentivise me to do it, would the Department not just make it 20 years?

Mr. Barry Delany

Regarding the voluntary piece, what I mean is that the landowner has a choice as to whether he plants. I take the point in regard to successions.

Senator Joanne Collins

The original landowner.

Mr. Barry Delany

The original landowner has a choice, and that is our issue. We nearly have to compete with our own schemes and other land use choices that they have. We have to make it as attractive as possible. We have certain communication and engagement that we are trying to do to make it more attractive, and so people can see what it is. When we look at the figures, it is coming in probably second or third in terms of land use return. It is below dairy and it is battling between tillage and beef at the moment. It is an attractive choice.

In terms of offering it to everybody, the previous programme was 15 years and was for everybody. We did a very detailed engagement and public consultation, and what came out of that was that we need to differentiate between farmer, landowner and other landowner. The other landowners would be incentivised for possibly altruistic purposes or for other reasons to plant, but we needed that strong nudge, those additional five years of payments, for the farmer to do that and to plant it, so-----

Senator Joanne Collins

Is the Department seeing an uptick now with those extra five years? Is it seeing that increase yet?

Mr. Barry Delany

It is challenging, but we have doubled the planting this year from the previous year and we are very actively engaging with the farm organisations, directly with farmers and through the register of foresters to try to tailor exactly what is wanted. As I think Dr. Mooney said, sometimes the messaging can be too broad and some parties want to plant commercial forestry, so we need to target those people in a particular way. We need to target those who want to plant native woodland for altruistic purposes or for other reasons. Then there is obviously the public land piece as well. We want to ensure that if you have some land, there is no reason not to plant it. We, along with the registered foresters, Teagasc and others, can help advise you as to what the best option is for your land, but there is no reason for any farmer not to consider planting some part of their land.

Senator Joanne Collins

Perfect. I thank the witnesses.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I welcome the witnesses. I have a question for Mr. Delany. If I am a corporate or a company and I put in a BISS application, which I am entitled to do, can I get the 20 years now?

Mr. Barry Delany

If any entity meets the criteria of an active farmer check under the BISS and receives one year of BISS, on that basis they will be eligible for the 20 years, yes.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Is there not a fear that this is opening the gate? What the Department has done, basically, with the stroke of a biro, is open the gate to guys who will come in and buy land beside farmers right around this country to blow them out in the interest of forestry. Are those not the facts?

Mr. Barry Delany

The Deputy can portray it that way. The other argument is-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

It is not portraying. I portray reality.

Mr. Barry Delany

As to what we see, what we are trying to do and what came through the public consultations - and these are the registered foresters who are dealing with all the parties the Deputy mentions, whether they are corporate entities, farmers or private landowners who are neither a corporate entity nor a farmer - the biggest block, they said, was those parties who are minded to plant, in particular young farmers, and in particular those who had inherited land, who were being hardest hit. In terms of a risk-reward and a balanced approach to this, that is where it came from.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

If I was a company before this that did not have a herd number, was it not only farmers who could draw the grants up to now? Is that not correct?

Mr. Barry Delany

Sorry. If you were a corporate entity-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

If you did not have a herd number, could you draw the grants before now?

Mr. Barry Delany

Of course, but you would not get the 20 years; you would get 15 years.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

But before that, before this scheme of 15 and 20 years, could you always get them if you were-----

Mr. Barry Delany

Sorry, in the previous programme of 2014-20-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Yes.

Mr. Barry Delany

Any party who planted, irrespective of who they were, got 15 years, whether they were a farmer, a non-farmer and so on.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

So the 20 years are now applicable to all, providing you have a herd number and a BISS payment put in. Is that it?

Mr. Barry Delany

Whatever about the herd number, you need to pass the active farmer check and then have received at least one BISS premium in advance of planting.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I have spoken to some of the witnesses before about this. When will the legislation be ready? At the moment in forestry that has been cut, and you have to replant within two years, there are people putting in trees near power lines. New legislation will change it to 50 m, or 55 m where there is three-phase. There are people putting in trees now that will need to be rooted out in six months, eight months or nine months. Can there not be something done within the witnesses' Department such that, anywhere near trees, a line is drawn in the sand at the moment of the setback distances because of the slowness of legislation coming in for the setback distances to be done? It is not the Department's fault. I am not saying it is the Department that is doing it

Mr. Barry Delany

That is a challenging one in that we have the criteria by which we issue licences and reforestation licences, and that is on the basis of the agreement between the ESB and the IFA, so we incorporate that into our licensing process. As we know, at the moment, the ESB is engaging bilaterally with landowners to come to a voluntary arrangement with them to widen their corridors in the absence of the legislation and take that approach. It will be very challenging to do that. I understand in this year, perhaps-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

To put it simply, the farmer has to plant now under the Department's criteria, which are there, but then there is legislation that we know is coming in a few months, so you will put in a tree to take out a tree in six months or seven months. There seems to be no common sense or joined up thinking such that a derogation would be issued or something like that for the time being.

Mr. Barry Delany

The biggest implications are probably for those sites where they are looking to widen the corridors, to be honest. That is where the biggest impact would be. We are obviously working very closely with our colleagues in the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment, who hold the pen on the ESB Act. I understand the legislation is prioritised for the summer schedule, so they will be discussing that and they are engaged with us and the forestry representatives. Obviously, the ESB is actively involved in that. It is in everyone's interest to have this sorted as quickly as possible. We are actively involved in that.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I did not see this in the past week or two. I know Mr. Delany said there are 4,500 ha of licence issued. How is the planting going this year compared with last year?

Mr. Barry Delany

As the Deputy knows, it has been an extremely wet year.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I know that.

Mr. Barry Delany

It has been challenging. As regards the planting, we have been speaking to some of the nurseries and the farm organisations in the past few days as well as the registered foresters. As of today, we have issued 148 licences and received 112-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

No. The hectares.

Mr. Barry Delany

Yes, I will come to that in a second. Afforestation, in terms of lands planted so far, is 361 ha.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

What had the Department done this time last year?

Mr. Barry Delany

We had done 378 ha, and we are 361 ha-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

So it is neck and neck.

Mr. Barry Delany

It is neck and neck. It is dry now. I have been talking to some of the nurseries and they say it was an extremely slow January and February. Land is still drying out, so there will be a big rush in terms of planting in that tight window now.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

How much land does the Department envisage it will get from the State to plant?

Dr. Robert Mooney

We are averaging 18 ha per site. If we have targeted about 82 organisations so far, we are trying to expand that quite significantly, so-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Will any of them be aware there is housing or anything needed?

Dr. Robert Mooney

No. We are having detailed conversations with those organisations and we are looking at land that has the potential for afforestation, but then if it is already allocated for other purposes, obviously, we will not proceed with that. That is State organisations' choice.

Senator Paul Daly

I think most of what I was going to say has been mentioned. A conversation about the definition of an active farmer is intriguing. It is one that has been going on for a long time. The Department has come down on a decision. There is a lot of talk as part of negotiations for the upcoming CAP about active farming and who is an active farmer. The emphasis on the next CAP may be to pay the farmer who is producing food, basically, so it is to be presumed, if that is the direction they take, that they will come up with a definition of an active farmer. If that differs from the Department's definition, how is the Department fixed legally when it comes to paying out money if it does not fall? Can the Department operate with a definition of an active farmer which may not end up being the recognised EU definition of an active farmer? Am I explaining myself-----

Mr. Barry Delany

I think so. I think it was Deputy Cooney who asked the last time what other schemes required this. In the first instance we were, insofar as possible, trying to align across the Department the definition of a farmer with the CFP definition, the BISS definition, of what an active farmer is. Obviously, if that changes, we will have to take that into account here. The reality is that we are somewhat aligned because our programme runs up until 2028, and if the CAP negotiations are ongoing and if there are any significant changes then, we will just have to take that into account in any new programme that will follow on our side. However, we will stay closely aligned to the definition of an active farmer on the CAP side.

The reality is any new definition on that probably will not come into play until, if I understand the negotiations on that, 2028. There are another two years in terms of the discussions, the regulations and so on. We are fully aligned. There is no risk of us diverging too far from that but again we will be looking at it very closely.

Senator Paul Daly

On the targets, the figure of 18% mentioned earlier is 18% of the land-mass of Ireland. Does Mr. Delany envisage that there will be a need to re-evaluate that figure to try to correlate it with available land? The amount of land available for potential planting is getting smaller, whereas the amount of land in the country does not change. It is getting used for solar power and wind power. It is being taken out of availability for forestry because the soil is peaty, or it is being built on. The amount of available land is ever decreasing, but the target is never going to change because other than a bit of coastal erosion, the overall land-mass is never to going to get any smaller. Does Mr. Delany think that figure is going to be achievable in the long run given all the constraints and the changes to the amount of available land?

Mr. Barry Delany

It is very challenging and, as I mentioned earlier and the Senator also mentioned, there are competing factors in terms of productive agricultural land or other options, such as wind farms, solar panels, long-term leases and whatever else. We have a forestry opportunities map that we can overlay in terms of available land. It feeds back into what my colleague Dr. Mooney mentioned earlier on in being very proactive in engagement. This is why there is the five years additional premium payment period for farmers to meet our targets. It is encouraging every farmer and landowner to utilise the attractive schemes that we have to plant on their own land and that they see that as something that is positive, useful and feeds into their land use. Beef farmers can plant a native tree area scheme in a corner of a field. Dairy farmers can plant a riparian strip, which we pay up to €22,000 over ten years for, to help in terms of water quality. Agroforestry for sheep farmers is really attractive and is one area that the Department has seen an increase in. Sheep farmers on an organic scheme receive their basic income support for sustainability scheme, BISS, payment, organic payment and payments from the Department for agroforestry. We see an uptick in that especially now with the new premium rates the former Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, managed to announce.

Senator Paul Daly

I have used my time and there is a vote in the Seanad. The construction side is being brought to Cabinet. When we talk about native trees, leisure forestry, riparian strips and agroforestry that is not commercial, how are we going to square that circle? If we get this right and start using more timber in construction, will we have the supply? From what I can see, the emphasis at the moment is more on leisure forestry, native trees, riparian strips and agroforestry that is not commercial. Will we have the timber in 30 years?

Mr. Barry Delany

At the moment, the forestry estate is over 800,000 ha. Of that, about 70% is commercial afforestation. Anything that is harvested this year is replanted and will come back. Anything we plant year on year is additional to that. We need more of both. We need to plant more native forests. We need to plant more commercial high forests as well. At moment, 40% of the planting is native planting, and about 35% is commercial afforestation. There is a balance there and, as the Senator said, we need to look exactly at what is required by the sector and model that with them. We have done some modelling work with the Council for Forest Research and Development, COFORD, on the demand over the next ten years and what is coming from our forests.

Going back again to showing that every farmer has a choice, 7 ha of forest type 12, which is mixed coniferous high forest, will supply timber in 30 years and will help mitigate some of our carbon issues as well. It is back to communicating with the right people so they make that choice. We need all types of forest planted but each forest is not going to contribute everything, so we need commercial afforestation to meet those targets on the timber side.

Deputy Paul Lawless

I thank the witnesses for coming in today. I acknowledge the work of the former Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, and of course our colleague Deputy Danny Healy-Rae on this committee. It is unfortunate that we lost him, but such is life. I want to recognise the contributions of both Deputies and welcome Deputy Cahill as well.

I have big concerns in relation to corporate entities coming, purchasing land and planting forestry. I raised this previously with the then Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae. A young man beside me waited about ten or 15 years for a farm to come up for sale only to be outbid by a corporate entity. The man, who has a second son, who is the second oldest son, wants the farm and was willing to pay big money but was outbid. I am concerned when I see moves to change the definition and to allow the premium payments for 20 years. The definition is around an active farmer check and then just one year of a BISS payment. Surely any corporate could avail of these 20-year premiums. What checks are in place to make sure that cannot happen?

Mr. Barry Delany

These considerations were what we looked at in the mid-term review and the impact of it. We could equally say that the young farmer the Deputy referred to, and it is the same where I am based as well, are being outbid by dairy farmers as well in terms of what they can afford to pay for particular pieces of land.

Deputy Paul Lawless

There is a difference. Someone may be outbid by a dairy farmer who is a man up the road. It is another story entirely being outbid by a corporate entity based in London. I will give another example. A constituent from north Mayo recently came to my clinic who was concerned about a windfarm in that area. I asked her if she knew the landowners and she told me that they are all corporates and are all based abroad. How does she contact those people? How does she engage with those people? Those people do not care about my county of Mayo. They are not the types of people my constituents can engage with and invite them to come to a meeting because they have concerns about a wind energy plant or whatever it might be. Does Mr. Delany know what I mean? It is entirely different and that should be said.

Mr. Barry Delany

I acknowledge that, and the Department has seen those situations and that extreme challenge of land use be it windfarms or planting on whole farms. That is why we are doing everything we can to try to encourage existing landowners to take an inclusive approach so that party then would have that 20-year premium in his hand when he is going to bid to buy that land to help him get that over the line, and that he would then plant part of that land and be able to farm otherwise in that area, and he is in the community. That is what the Department is trying to do and wants to do. We want to support that but we also-----

Deputy Paul Lawless

It is a reduction of standards in terms of the definition. Will corporate entities be able to avail of it? Why can they not register as active farmers and avail of 20-year premiums?

Mr. Barry Delany

Deputy Fitzmaurice said something similar. Yes, that is possible but it not really our experience in terms of what they do and how they go about it. We do not really see that. We have just started this now and are happy to report back to the committee in terms of how it goes. The reality is the feedback from all of the farm organisations, the sectoral people and the registered foresters who have engaged has been nothing but positive in terms of the measure. They see this as a positive and that it will encourage more farmers to plant their land.

I take the Deputy's point, but in terms of the safeguards that are there, it means that the corporate entity would have to go through the process of purchasing that land and going through the active farmer check. It is not just a case of buying the land and leaving it there. With the active check, they have to be involved in farming and then get their single farm payment approved. There is a double-check there. It goes through the BISS programme, and the active farmer check before then coming to the Department.

Deputy Paul Lawless

I am concerned about the unintended consequences. The scheme is not robust enough.

Does the Department conduct any analysis as to the percentage of planted land owned by a farmer and the percentage owned by a corporate entity? Has any analysis been done in that regard?

Mr. Barry Delany

This is covered in some of the figures we shared with the committee earlier. The reality is that 80% of applicants are farmers and 20% are non-farmers. We are finding that, when those 20% get approval, they proceed to plant but that the other 80%, the farmers, are not progressing to plant. There are a number of reasons for that. It may be to do with the criteria that apply to their licence. Their circumstances may have changed between the time of application and the time for planting. They may have moved into a lease or gone into organics or some other farming approach. That drop-off is worrying. Going back to the farmer rate, we were talking earlier about the former Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, speaking to an awful lot of people who had licences in hand and asking why they had not planted yet. It is now about that nudge. While people were applying as farmers, when we went through the criteria, they did not meet the active farmer rule and the four-year requirement. That will bring a cohort of those through to planting. I will go back to the point that we believe there is more positive in making this change than not. From our point of view, it is really important to look closely at the work we are doing, which Dr. Mooney spoke about earlier, to get under the bonnet and see what is stopping landowners who have licences in their hand from proceeding to planting. What are the speed bumps? What barriers are preventing them from making that choice? It is really important for us to understand that. We are working with the farm organisations, the registered foresters and the landowners themselves to see what those speed bumps are. People have 20 years of premium in front of them but are deciding to go another route with that land. That is the critical piece for us in meeting our goals.

An Cathaoirleach

That is all the people who have asked to speak. I have one or two questions.

Deputy Michael Cahill

I am sorry, a Chathaoirligh. I thank you and the members for welcoming me onto the committee. I am delighted to be a member of the agricultural committee. As the Cathaoirleach will be aware, I have come in here on a number of occasions and spoken on specific issues. I appreciate that we are in a very difficult time in farming with the protests, the fuel crisis and the upcoming CAP negotiations. There are reports of cuts of 20% or 30% in funding. It is an important time in the context of farm incomes, ACRES, TAMS, and farm succession and young farmers, which is a very important issue for me and for all the members. We need to hold what we have and, if at all possible, encourage young farmers to get involved.

I will also acknowledge the work Deputy Michael Healy-Rae carried out as a Minister of State at the Department of agriculture. I do not get any satisfaction or pleasure from his stepping down as a Minister of State. It is a huge loss. He did great work. I have heard that from a lot of colleagues. It is a huge loss to my county and to the farming sector. I equally get no pleasure from taking Deputy Danny Healy-Rae's position on this committee. I was contacted by the Government and offered the position. If I had not accepted it, I would have been criticised heavily in my own county and it would have gone to somebody else outside of Kerry. I know Deputy Healy-Rae will be in here many times and will speak. I have known Danny and Michael all my life. I knew their father terribly well. You could say their father and my father were personal friends. They were joined at the hip, so to speak.

I welcome our guests this afternoon, the senior people in the forestry division: Mr. Delany, Mr. Dunne and Dr. Mooney. Will they explain how difficult it is for farmers to plant on commonage lands? There are cases where people are living away from home, perhaps in long-term care. There are also cases where people have passed and are deceased, perhaps without having made a will. Will the witnesses explain how things work in that area?

I also have serious concerns regarding corporates buying up farms. Deputy Lawless mentioned that he was aware of a case where somebody was watching a particular farm for quite a period and was basically jumped. We are going down a very dangerous road. We need to watch that carefully. Our first and foremost goal should be to look after the farming community.

Mr. Barry Delany

I thank the Deputy and wish him the best of luck in his new role. I will ask Mr. Dunne to take the question on commonage.

Mr. Seamus Dunne

I will make an attempt. There are two aspects to the question of commonages. One is about the general quality and type of land. That seems to be a bigger barrier now than it ever was in getting approval to plant. A lot of the commonage land is peaty land that does not meet the relevant productivity scores. The nature of the land is probably the number one issue for commonage land. The second aspect is land ownership. I am not as familiar with how these issues get resolved. From our perspective, we pay out to those who are entitled, the owners of the land. We need proof of that at payment stage. I am not overly familiar with how we work out these issues and I am not prepared to address the matter today but I can understand how it would be difficult to resolve all of those matters.

Mr. Barry Delany

I acknowledge the Deputy's comments on non-farmers and their planting of land. As I have said, we have tried to demonstrate here, insofar as we can, that everything we are doing is to encourage farmers to plant their land. That is our primary goal. If others are planting trees, so be it but our primary route towards meeting our targets is encouraging farmers to look at planting some part of their land, insofar as is possible. We will be doing everything we can to pursue that. For our part, the Deputy will be seeing a lot more communication and engagement in that regard. This will all be very targeted at what might work in different areas and what people want to do. We have been meeting people within the sector on some of this and they have engaged very positively. That is also a positive step because it had been a little more difficult when we had the licensing issues but now we all have a north star or shared goal as to what we want to do. It is great that we are working closely and positively with the sector through our forest strategy consultative committee and beyond. That is really useful and we thank those stakeholders for their engagement.

An Cathaoirleach

I have one or two quick questions. I also welcome Deputy Cahill, who has previously been a very active contributor to our meetings here. I know he has an intimate knowledge of farming and that he will bring that to bear here. I also thank Deputy Danny Healy-Rae and the former Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, who took a really proactive approach to forestry.

I have one or two questions on the earlier correspondence. The next forestry programme, for the period after 2027, was briefly mentioned in that correspondence. How advanced is the next programme? Will it be up and running for 2027? When will the Department be sending details to Europe to get its take? Will it be up and running for 2027, when the current programme expires?

Mr. Barry Delany

On our reference to any new programme, we have just delivered the mid-term review and our focus is on the outward communication of that review. As the Cathaoirleach will know, this programme runs from 2023 until the end of 2027 so we need to have a programme in place before 1 January 2028.

We are working internally as to what that might look like. We have commenced our consultation with the forest strategy consultative committee. We are meeting it to workshop what this should look like. We will then reach out into wider consultation on the specifics. As the committee knows, the current forest strategy deals with forests for wood, forests for people and forests for nature. We will try to shape our discussions around those elements. That will allow us to approach the Commission and look at that state-aid approval process.

An Cathaoirleach

When does the Department expect to approach the Commission?

Mr. Barry Delany

At official level, we have already engaged with it to flag what we are considering. We have to ensure we consult appropriately here before we go with the definitives of what a programme would look like. We will be talking to the Commission before the summer break, and we will probably sit down more seriously thereafter.

An Cathaoirleach

It is hugely important that, once this programme ends, another one is immediately able to get up and running and take over from there.

It is a real struggle to achieve the current targets. The planting is not happening as the Department hoped. What big ticket items will the Department be seeking to change in the next programme to catch up on that?

Mr. Barry Delany

Maybe we will come back to the committee to discuss that, rather than having a free-flow discussion now, if that is okay.

An Cathaoirleach

It is. We can do that.

Mr. Barry Delany

We could perhaps have a Minister with us to discuss that in more detail. We are happy to come back to the committee in that regard. It would be useful to get the committee’s input into this as well. We will come back to it about that.

An Cathaoirleach

We will arrange that.

Time is tight. I am conscious that one member has not had an opportunity to contribute yet. In the time remaining, if members want a quick-fire session, they can put their questions to the witnesses, but we do not expect answers. I will lead out with Senator Brady, who has not had an opportunity up until now.

Senator Paraic Brady

First, what percentage of windblown forests does the Department expect to plant this year? Second, if a farmer wishes to sell harvested plantations, is the buyer liable to replant or can it be put back into agricultural, wind or solar use?

An Cathaoirleach

Are there other members who want to ask a quick question? We are ten minutes over our allotted time. We will not have the opportunity to get answers but the witnesses will follow them up.

Deputy William Aird

I have one final question. The witnesses, the ESB and everyone else spoke about the desire to increase the corridors for trees. Will Coillte pay farmers for the loss incurred as a result of the extension of those corridors?

Mr. Barry Delany

It is the ESB, not Coillte.

Deputy William Aird

Okay. The other question I have concerns the money that was ring-fenced by the former Minister of State to test out whether trees were suitable for planting in peaty soils. Money was allocated and ring-fenced in that regard. When will the Department have those results?

An Cathaoirleach

The witnesses will follow up on those questions. We will be checking in on the correspondence from earlier today as well.

That concludes the business of this session. We will suspend and resume with the second session shortly.

Sitting suspended at 4.54 p.m. and resumed at 5.02 p.m.

• Back to table of contents
• Dog Welfare: Dogs Trust Ireland