Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
Draft Forestry Bill
Premier Woodlands Ltd.
SUBMISSION TO THE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ON THE NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY FORESTRY BILL
6 November 2009
Mr Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for Agriculture & Rural Development
Room 284
Parliament Buildings, Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX
Dear Sir
Ref: Draft Forestry Bill
Please find attached Premier Woodlands comments as per your request.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email.
Yours faithfully
John Hetherington
Managing Director
Introduction:
Premier Woodlands are an indigenous forest management company, based in Northern Ireland, with operations throughout Ireland and most parts of Great Britain. We have been in business for almost 20 years and originally concentrated on woodland management and establishment in Northern Ireland. But, due to the lack of growth and opportunities, we extended our operations into the other areas. The woodland area under our management equates to approximately the total area of private woodland in Northern Ireland. Our services include woodland establishment, management, maintenance, timber harvesting and investment.
Generally, the proposed Forestry Bill will do little to encourage the doubling of woodland cover in Northern Ireland over the next 50 years. As it is over 50 years since the last Forestry Act was introduced, and it may be another 50 years before this matter is re-examined, it is vitally important that this proposed Forestry Bill is fit for purpose.
Our response to the Bill has been laid out in the form of a specific, line-by-line commentary.
The Bill
Part 1 – Functions of the Department
Paragraph 1: The word ‘expand’ must be included in this paragraph, on the following basis...The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has the general duty of promoting and expanding forestry.
Paragraph 2: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 3: Recognition has to be taken of DARD land, where they do not own sporting rights (shooting rights).
Paragraph 4: We raise a general concern that DARD could begin to operate as a commercial business outside of forestry activities and use unfair competition (crown exemption) against the smaller private sector. Therefore, this paragraph requires re-drafting in order to define the term ‘purpose other than forestry’ activities.
Paragraph 5: This is the most contentious proposal within Part 1 of the Bill. This paragraph requires re-drafting and a clear definition given of the circumstances in which the compulsory acquisition of land may be used as, potentially, it would give a very unfair advantage to the Department, especially for non forestry purposes..
Paragraph 6: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 7: Incidental Powers represent another very contentious area. This paragraph must be re-drafted and the ‘Incidental Powers’ clearly defined.
Part 2 – Protection of Forest Trees from damage
Paragraph 8: This paragraph requires re-drafting as it does not take into full consideration the fact with regard to a large percentage ( estimate 50%) of the Forest Service estate land, the sporting rights are not owned by the Department. There is little or no recognition of animal welfare within this draft paragraph.
Paragraph 9: This is the most contentious paragraph within this part of the Bill. The paragraph requires re-drafting, as this would potentially allow the Department to authorise shooting on private land, over which they have no jurisdiction (or crown exemption?). We believe these proposed powers do not sit within existing firearms legislation or the 1985 Wildlife Order. Animal welfare concerns have also been ignored.
Paragraph 10: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 11: This paragraph requires re-drafting as we believe it does not sit well with other legislation.
Paragraph 12: No Comment at this time.
Paragraph 13: No Comment at this time.
Part 3 – Felling of trees
Paragraph 14: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 15: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 16: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 17: This paragraph requires re-drafting to clarify what a felling management plan requirements clearly are and the ability to grant aid the felling management plan as per other UK jurisdictions.
Paragraph 18: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 19: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 20: This paragraph requires re-drafting to allow the Department not to charge for felling licences until such time as it becomes accepted practice in the rest of the UK.
Paragraph 21: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 22: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 23: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 24: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 25: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 26: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 27: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 28: This paragraph requires re-drafting as it gives unfair advantage to the Department by exempting it from the felling licence system. The Department rationale to justify their exemption is because all the Department woodland is certificated to international standards of forest management and accredited under the UK Woodland Assurance Scheme (UKWAS). Our company and others in the private sector also run Forest Certification Group Schemes, managed to international standards and accredited to UKWAS, yet no concessions are offered.
Paragraph 29: No Comment at this time
Part 4 – Miscellaneous and Supplementary
Paragraph 30: This paragraph requires re-drafting as we do not agree with giving the public a pedestrian right of access on all forestry land for recreation, as the Department do not own sporting rights on up to 50% of the land.
Paragraph 31: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 32: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 33: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 34: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 35: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 36: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 37: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 38: No Comment at this time
Paragraph 39: No Commentat this time
Concluding Remarks
We believe the ARD Committee should have the ability to request that some of this primary legislation is subject to secondary legislation, which also requires the scrutiny and approval of the ARD Committee. Everyone agrees that doubling the area of woodland in Northern Ireland will produce many wide ranging, positive benefits. The evidence to date shows the rate of new planting to be at very low levels, which has been the case for some time. There is little or no evidence within this draft Bill which convinces us that this situation will radically change. As this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in drafting a new forestry Bill, we are disappointed and discouraged with the proposed measures now on the table plus the extension of crown exemption instead of its removal in line with other pieces of legislation.
We look forward to having the opportunity of speaking to the Committee members and expanding the issues raised in this submission.