COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)

Forestry Bill

21 January 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Willie Clarke

Witnesses:

Professor Sue Christie	)	Northern Ireland Environment Link
Mr Geoff Nuttall	)	Northern Ireland Environment Link

Mr Brendan Friel	)	Confederation of Forest Industries
Mr Stuart Goodall	)
Lord Hamilton	)

Mr Wesley Aston	)	Ulster Farmers’ Union
Mr Gregg Shannon	)	Ulster Farmers’ Union

Dr Caro-lynne Ferris	)	Countryside Access and Activities Network
Mr Brian Murphy	)
Mr Dawson Stelfox	)

The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr):

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for attending this meeting at Castlewellan Forest Park. I apologise for the slight delay in starting; some Committee members had considerable distances to travel. I thank you for your patience. I ask people to turn off any mobile phones or electronic devices that they have, because they interfere with the recording equipment, and Hansard staff want to take an accurate record of today’s meeting. Members also know that they should declare all interests, where appropriate.

I invite the representatives from the Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL) to make a presentation on the Forestry Bill. You are very welcome. As you know, we have been taking evidence from a number of organisations about that important piece of legislation; it is good to get out and about and take evidence from experts who work in the field — in the forest, I should say — and who understand the complexities, not only of what is currently going on, but of what is necessary to improve things for the future. I welcome Professor Sue Christie, the director, and Mr Geoff Nuttall. You are both very welcome to today’s meeting. I would like you to make a presentation and give us your views, and then I and my fellow Committee members will ask you some questions.

Professor Sue Christie ( Northern Ireland Environment Link):

Thank you very much. I will make a short introduction. Northern Ireland Environment Link is a network and forum body for voluntary environmental organisations in Northern Ireland. We represent 55 full member organisations, which are interested in all aspects of the environment, and their members, amounting to around 100,000 people in Northern Ireland. Geoff will give a brief introduction to the multiple benefits of woodland and the scope for using the Forestry Bill to achieve those benefits, and then I will speak about some specifics of the Bill.

Mr Geoff Nuttall ( Northern Ireland Environment Link):

I am here in my capacity as a member of the executive committee of Northern Ireland Environment Link. Seamus Gallagher, the policy officer, had previously planned to be here. I will outline what our organisation sees as some of the key benefits of woodland, with the particular aim of highlighting why we think the Forestry Bill represents an important opportunity to maximise those benefits and why we feel that we are not necessarily maximising all the benefits of forestry and woodland that we could. I am conscious that the Committee has already taken evidence from quite a number of organisations, so apologies if I say anything that you have heard before.

Woodland is a relatively scarce resource here, certainly when compared with woodland cover internationally. An often-quoted fact is that, at 6%, our percentage of woodland cover is the lowest of any country in Europe, with the exception of Iceland. The EU average is much higher. Actually, the majority of our woodland is not native but is state-owned coniferous plantation. There is only a very small amount left of the very rich resource that it is our natural woodland; that is particularly true of our ancient woodland, which is woodland that has existed continuously since 1600. In the past 50 years, we have lost 273 of our ancient woodlands.

Against that background, I would like to highlight the benefits of woodland beyond timber production.

The Chairperson:

Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question on that last point, which was passed over in a way that was almost blasé. Some 273 of our ancient woodlands were felled in the past 50 years. How many are actually left?

Mr Nuttall:

What we know, particularly from the work that the Woodland Trust has done, is that the mapped ancient woodland in Northern Ireland represents 0·08% of the land area, so it is a very small area. I cannot put a figure on how many woodlands there are, but those that remain are normally very small fragments of woodland. They tend to remain in river valleys that are inaccessible for other activities, and they tend to be in small clumps. Part of the issue, from a conservation point of view, is that those very small clumps of ancient woodlands would have even more biodiversity value if they could be linked and brought together. Those tiny fragments are left and, particularly in areas that were previously ancient woodland, there is potential to regenerate those areas, even over decades. Those tiny fragments are dotted around the country.

I will highlight the benefits of woodland, particularly those beyond forestry as an industry, which it clearly is in Northern Ireland. There are many others aspects to forestry, and we are keen that the Bill does its best to promote them. Woodland has recreation and leisure benefits, which are valued at over £400 million a year in Great Britain. However, woodland has other functions that will become even more important in the future, particularly those that affect climate change and the projected changes in weather patterns. Not only can forestation reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it can help to deal with natural flood management and the kind of weather patterns that are occurring more frequently, such as sudden heavy downpours. Woodland has a role to play in regulating those aspects of the climate.

I mentioned the biodiversity value of woodland. The richness of woodland, particularly ancient woodland, as a biodiversity resource is not as widely understood as it could be. It is irreplaceable; once we lose it, we cannot restore it through newer forestation. Moreover, woodland has a high amenity value, and research suggests that house values can be substantially influenced by the presence of trees and woodland. Beyond those benefits, woodland has a positive effect on ecosystem services. That concept is increasingly coming to the fore, and the services that we take for granted from woodland are becoming more and more important.

From the point of view of the supply of resources such as fuel, our local industry is at the forefront of using wood as fuel, and Balcas will make a presentation today. Woodland is a valuable regulator of air quality, helps to purify water and can, potentially, treat sewage. Moreover, it can reduce noise substantially; when woodland disappears, the increase in noise is noticeable. Over and above that, woodland has a range of social benefits and a cultural value. Moreover, the availability of woodland spaces that people can use has a health value. Woodland can act as an outdoor classroom and an education resource. It is a rich resource that could be exploited even more.

I will highlight three particular areas where there is more scope to unlock those benefits. First, the recreational benefits of woodland and the associated economic benefits appear to be underplayed in the Bill, which tends to focus on forestry as a commercial timber activity. Secondly, the biodiversity benefits could be emphasised to ensure protection of the rich biodiversity in our oldest woodlands. Moreover, we should think about new woodland creation in a way that helps us to sustain and restore biodiversity. Thirdly, woodland has a natural flood-management role. For instance, my organisation, the World Wildlife Fund, has been keen to highlight the value of using the special environmental projects element of the countryside management scheme to help natural flood-management projects. My colleagues in Scotland have done a lot of work in that area, and I understand that £17 million is unspent in the special environmental projects strand. That resource could be used to unlock that benefit.

Before I hand over to Sue, I will outline why we feel that the current policy and legislation has not been sufficient to unlock those benefits. If we look at the current strategy and policy of the Forest Service, progress on the target to increase woodland cover by 12% in 50 years is not on track. In fact, we have seen a fall in the amount of new woodland creation over the past five years. We also had a commitment in the biodiversity strategy to develop a new woodland inventory. However, that strategy is nearly 10 years old, and we have not seen any move towards developing the inventory.

The key message that I want to put across to the Committee is that we have a golden opportunity to update the legislation. It is a long time since our last forestry legislation, and we have a choice now. We could take a cue from the old GB legislation, but we need to remember that it is 40 years old. Do we want to get the best that we can from the Bill to modernise our returns from forestry and woodland? Those are the key points that I wanted to make.

Professor Christie:

I want to stress that forestry is far more than just timber production and that there are opportunities in the Bill to optimise those additional public benefits. Forestry is a very important public resource, and it should be recognised and funded as such for the wider public benefit. Although important, the direct economic benefit of timber production is not the only benefit.

I will make a few comments about specific aspects of the Bill. First, the Bill’s definition of forestry needs some amplification and should include greater detail on the other benefits of forestry and allow for some differentiation between its varied aspects. One aspect is commercial forestry, which largely involves softwood, and it has great benefits for timber production. It may be of less benefit to other areas, but it does have some biodiversity and recreational benefits.

Ancient woodland is, obviously, our most valuable and most restricted area of woodland. It is the most valuable for providing ecosystem services and wider public benefits for education and recreation. Therefore, it needs special protection.

Finally, short-rotation coppice and other crops are grown for energy production. The growth of such crops brings some benefits in that the land is used for forestry production, but it can also have additional biodiversity benefits. Short-rotation coppice is a crop that grows relatively rapidly, and, in contrast to long-term forestry, farmers can get in and out of that type of production over a relatively short period. It can also provide benefits, such as flood management. However, it is a slightly different animal to normal timber production, and it is notably different to the creation of ancient woodland. Therefore, a differentiation between those three types of woodland would benefit the definition of woodland in the Bill.

The statutory purpose is slightly narrow. We believe that it should encourage and resource sustainable woodland through restoration, creation and management, and it should include some additional caveats on the benefits. The statutory purpose should apply to all woodland, both public and private. There should be a presumption against the felling of ancient and long-established woodland, and we need a requirement to produce an up-to-date woodland inventory. We have been planning to do that for nearly 10 years; it was originally mooted in the biodiversity strategy in 2000. We desperately need an up-to-date woodland inventory, because, if we are to have targets and monitor progress against them, we need to know what resources we have.

We have targets for woodland creation, which were talked about. There are targets in the Forest Service strategy and the Programme for Government. However, there are no targets in the Bill, and we recommend that it contains a target for the retention and creation of native woodland. The problem is that we are not on course to meet our existing targets, much less any new ones. We need to ensure that all woodland creation respects priority natural habitats and integrates all woodland functions to deliver maximum benefits. That does not mean that every bit of woodland creation has to deliver all benefits; it simply means that, overall, the programme should deliver all of the benefits that we are looking at.

We feel that the powers of the Department are a little bit too broad. There are no checks and balances on what the Department is allowed to do. For example, clause 4(1) states that:

“The Department may use or develop forestry land for a purpose other than forestry.”

That is meant to enable the development of facilities such as this one, the Grange in Castlewellan Forest Park. Unfortunately, it could also be used to enable the development of a housing estate or a commercial enterprise, so some specification is needed in that clause.

The incidental powers are also extremely broad, and they would seem to allow anything. As a form of check and balance on the Department’s powers, we propose that there should be some sort of forestry advisory committee to advise the Minister on how the powers are being used. I know that some of our members who have testified before the Committee in the past have made similar proposals. Unlimited powers can lead to problems, and we feel that an external audit and external input would be most useful.

The advisory committee could also have a role in the protection of trees. The Bill allows the Department to protect tree growing by killing animals or entering into neighbouring properties to conduct forestry control. Presumably, that forestry control means dealing with diseased or invasive alien plants that might be endangering trees. All those powers are fine. The problem is that the powers are written so broadly that they could enable people to do absolutely anything. We worry that endangered plants or animals could be damaged, because the Bill enables the Department to act if it “reasonably suspects” that trees are likely to be damaged. That seems far too broad a power, and there needs to be some sort of check so that people can appeal.

We have wanted felling licences to be reintroduced to Northern Ireland for many years. We strongly welcome their reintroduction, because it is absolutely necessary. However, we request that the provision apply to the Government and the Forest Service as well as to everyone else. That would level the playing field and ensure that the same conditions apply to all. It is important that there are conditions to reduce the amount of pollution caused during and after felling and to ensure prompt reinstatement to prevent erosion and damage to the environment, both within the felled site and adjacent to it.

We stress the need for an ancient woodland inventory to ensure that no ancient woodland is felled by accident because no one knew that it was ancient woodland when the felling licence was applied for. A public register of significant applications and a consultation period would also be highly desirable. That would not apply to every person who wants to fell a small tree in their garden. However, there should be a public notice of a proposal to fell a significant area, because organisations such as the Woodland Trust may want to comment on that.

Ancient woodland and venerable trees have been mentioned several times. There needs to be a presumption against the felling of any ancient woodland. However, that, too, requires an inventory. Otherwise, we would not know where the venerable tree is, how old it is, and how to identify it if a felling licence were proposed. The inventory should also extend to conservation areas and trees that are subject to tree preservation orders.

The Bill enables a felling licence to be granted for planned permitted development. However, that system seems almost back to front, because the Planning Service is not the expert on what woodland is suitable for felling, especially in the absence of an inventory. One would think that a felling licence, which will have been assessed by tree experts, would be required before planning permission is granted rather than afterwards. I can see the point of the measure, but it needs to be clarified.

I want the ancient woodland to be protected, and I have sympathy and support for your issue with respect to the definition of established woodland. I fully support the introduction of a definite inventory. However, I am concerned that people may allow things to go on as they have done, rather than undertaking a significant management plan that could cost them a great deal of money.

Professor Christie:

I hope that management plans would not cost a great deal of money.

Mr Elliott:

OK.

Professor Christie:

The management plan need only be a quick assessment of things to think about, such as where the land came from and what it is used for. Small areas would probably not need to be examined in that way. I initially thought that you were talking about vast swathes of uplands that were planted by Forest Service, which should definitely consider the way the land was used.

Mr Elliott:

Mr W Clarke:

At the moment, I do not believe that tree preservation orders are working. There could be a situation in which a developer cuts down 100 protected trees and, most of the time, faces no prosecution whatsoever. Should the Bill make provisions for the Forest Service to take control of tree preservation orders from the DOE? The system is not working at the moment.

Professor Christie:

It is certainly not working at the moment, and the idea that someone could “accidentally” back a bulldozer over a protected tree is appalling. We will have to go back and look in detail at proposals for a balance between Planning Service and the new powers for felling licenses. They certainly need to be fairly closely interrelated. I do not know how that can be done, because Planning Service has the traditional role of managing tree preservation orders. I agree that it has not done that effectively. It has been a source of much frustration for us for several years that all we have had are tree preservation orders and they have not been effective. There has been a lack of felling licences, which is why we are so happy that they are being introduced. However, I do not know whether just transferring the control of tree preservation orders to the DOE is the most effective way of doing it.

Mr Nuttall:

We now move to an oral presentation on the Forestry Bill by the Confederation of Forest Industries (ConFor). Brendan Friel, Stuart Goodall and Lord Hamilton, you are all very welcome to today’s meeting of our Agriculture Committee. The floor is yours. We are eager to hear your presentation, after which we will go through the rigmarole of asking questions.

Mr Stuart Goodall (Confederation of Forest Industries):

Thank you, Chairman. I will give a general introduction and a recap of the paper that we sent as evidence to the Committee. I hope that there will be plenty of time afterwards for members to ask questions of the three of us.

I am chief executive of the Confederation of Forest Industries (ConFor), which represents businesses across the forest industry and the wood-using supply chain. In practice, we are delivering the sustainability, which you talked about earlier, through the mills that provide income to the public and private sector woodland owners, management companies and experts. We provide services to woodland owners, which helps to deliver the sustainable forest management of the woodlands across Northern Ireland.

In recent decades, we have seen the development of a modern, competitive forestry and wood sector in Northern Ireland that delivers green jobs and business growth, as well as tackling carbon through the planting of trees, as we already heard, through providing timber for renewable energy and providing wood for construction, for example. That is the use of wood in its solid form, where carbon is locked up for long periods. However, it is a product that has a very carbon-lean profile and, therefore, can reduce carbon emissions from the production of steel, concrete, plastics and so on. That is beneficial to the development of a low-carbon economy, and we would welcome recognition of that in the Bill.

There seems to be opportunity for further growth in the sector, and the Bill should recognise the opportunity to deliver a low-carbon economy. The Forest Service has played an important role in that area over the decades, and it should work with the private sector to continue the growth of forestry businesses. Moreover, we hope that the Bill will reference a desire to increase the area of woodland. Doubling the amount of woodland is a very ambitious target, but it is good to set an ambitious target on which to focus our minds and efforts. The Bill should include recognition of the importance of maintaining and, hopefully, increasing the supply of wood. Forestry is a long-term business, and businesses in that sector require long-term confidence and security, which, if it is in place, will support the significant investment that has taken place.

The Bill should reflect the importance of recognising the biodiversity and recreational value of all types of woodland. As previous witnesses have said, ancient woodland is very important. At the same time, the biodiversity and recreational benefits of softwoods have never been properly recognised in public policy. We should not consider softwoods to be the forests that we planted in the 1970s, the 1960s or earlier. At that time, the intention was to put as many trees in the ground as quickly as possible, without any real thought for landscape, the environment, people or wildlife. That is no longer the case. Modern forestry standards, which are agreed by all stakeholders, environmental organisations and social and business organisations, ensure that we manage our forests in a much more modern way and provide opportunities for access and much increased biodiversity and mixtures of species. Commercial forestry is good for a low-carbon economy and for biodiversity and access.

Another key element of the Bill is felling licensing. As a sector, we never welcome new regulation. However, we recognise that felling licensing has a role. Due diligence legislation that is being considered by the EU and is likely to be approved in the short term is causing pressure and will require people to be able to demonstrate where they buy timber from. A felling licence may be the way to tackle such issues. Our key concern is the wish to charge for felling licensing. That does not happen in the Republic or in Great Britain. We want to point out very strongly that the Bill’s objective is to deliver sustainable forest management and to encourage people to manage their woods sustainably and to recognise that it involves the production of wood. It should encourage people to plant new woodlands. If we introduce a measure that is seen as a disincentive, it will be harder to achieve the Bill’s overall aims. We support the removal of any proposal to charge for felling licences.

Moreover, the concern that has arisen from experience in Great Britain is the way in which the mechanism of felling licensing will be applied. Will it be done with a light or heavy touch? A heavy touch will act as a disincentive for people to manage their woods, because that will become such an onerous, difficult and drawn-out experience. The vast majority those long, drawn-out cases do not result in any significant change to the process; it is merely an issue of capacity and of people wanting to ask questions. We recommend that the administration be carried out with a light touch.

I will touch on some other aspects of the Bill. As we have highlighted previously, the clauses relating to compulsory acquisition are written very broadly and would benefit from proper definition. We recognise that there are issues around access and development in certain cases and that the ability to acquire land compulsorily will, therefore, be beneficial to the Department. However, we wish to ensure that that power is not drawn too broadly and that it is exercised only as a last resort. The Department must try to find ways around access issues rather than simply jump straight to compulsory acquisition. Given that the private sector sometimes suffers from similar access issues, we wondered whether there was an opportunity for Forest Service to operate an access policy and to work with the private sector to solve problems there too.

We recognise that deer can be a problem. However, it is important that Forest Service acts only where there is a problem, rather than simply trying to do everything itself. Whether Forest Service has the capacity to take such action is an important issue, but there are benefits of working in concert with the private sector to address that. Deer do not just stay in one place. Therefore, if one wants to control them, one cannot expect that they will be adjacent to Forest Service woodland next week, for instance, because they move around. If there is a need to control the deer population, it is better that that is done through a co-ordinated policy with the private sector.

Finally, people are pushing for access to woodlands, and the number of requests seems to be increasing everywhere. Such access needs to be introduced in a way that is sensitive to the other uses of forests, so that it does not undermine the wider sustainability of the activities involved in managing forests, whether those are in the public or private sector. That was just a quick run-through of the issues. We are happy to answer members’ questions.

The Chairperson:

Thank you for your presentation and for the briefing paper that you forwarded to the Committee. That was very helpful because it covered all the relevant issues. It is important that the Committee and, indeed, the public grasp the extent of business that goes on in Forest Service.

Your submission states:

“It is estimated that wood processing businesses alone provide £9·2m of wages, in addition to the £33·5m of estimated expenditure on goods and services.”

That is a significant and encouraging identification of what forestry businesses provide to Northern Ireland.

I am of the view that legislation and government should be there to help rather than to hinder or restrict opportunities. What can the Bill do to help to grow that wage base and investment in the economy? What could be added to the Bill to benefit the industry, so that in 10 or 15 years’ time, the industry will provide double the amount of wages as a result of Forest Service?

Mr Goodall:

I will give you a few quick ideas, and then my colleagues can jump in with their answers. This comes back to the key points in our submission. Wood-processing is a long-term business, and people need to have confidence in it. People need to be reassured that, if the Government invest in a mill or in upgrading a mill, such as Balcas, there will be continued timber supplies in future. Therefore, Forest Service, as the principle supplier of timber, must provide reassurance through statements about its production and about what it intends to do for the future, and the Government, who are responsible for managing the public estate on behalf of people in Northern Ireland, must say that they will recognise and support that.

The area of new planting should be increased. At the moment, we are processing far more wood in Northern Ireland than we are producing, because we are pulling in supplies from elsewhere. That demonstrates how competitive the sector is. It also means that the sector has the opportunity to expand, if we can get more wood in the ground.

We would not have invested — and firms other than Balcas have invested in new processing equipment — without a joint approach by the Department. Otherwise, there was no way that we would have got the funding to go ahead with an investment of £25 million in a CHP plant and a new sawmill.

My dream is to achieve a 50% increase in forest, which is desperately important as we go forward, because, as you said, in Northern Ireland, the processing sector utilises approximately 800,000 tons of wood. The Forest Service produces 400,000 tons, so we are importing a lot of wood from other places. It would be good to get the raw material here.

The Chairperson:

That is a good point. I want to turn to the issue of felling licences. Again, you identified the kernel of that issue when you said that there is no charge for such licences in GB or in the Republic of Ireland. In your written submission you state:

“A charge could well act as a disincentive to plant new woods or manage existing woodlands.”

You go on to make a strong point that:

“This would have the perverse effect of undermining the central purpose of the Bill.”

Again, it is important that the Committee understands what felling licence charges would mean to your industry. How much would felling licences cost your members in a year, if those charges were to be enacted?

Lord Hamilton (Confederation of Forest Industries):

We have not had any indication of what they would cost. One indication is that the Forest Service would like to bring in charges in the future rather than immediately. From a grower’s point of view — that is my profession — it would act as a total disincentive. It would be just a further burden of bureaucracy and cost that we could really do without. At the moment, the business is marginal at best. We want to find better ways to reduce costs in our business and expand income. A further charge will be just a choke around the neck of our business and will make us less competitive with growers in Scotland and the Irish Republic.

The Chairperson:

Essentially, given what Mr Goodall and Mr Friel and our previous witnesses said about the desire for planting and for more raw materials, a felling licence would take away the incentive to even go down that road.

Lord Hamilton:

Felling licences are a slightly different issue for us. First, EU regulations are coming in that will make it better to have a felling licence. Our problem and the reality will be that, if there is a charge for that felling licence, it will act as a financial penalty for people in this business in the commercial sector. That is totally wrong.

Mr Goodall:

We have looked at that, not so much as regards price, but in respect of profitability and activity in Northern Ireland and the rest of GB. It is about what one aims to deliver from woodland and whether that can be made a sustainable activity. For example, if a Forest Service is expected to deliver more visitor and associated facilities, the only way that it can do so is by clearly identifying and managing that commercial activity and producing timber around it. The private sector would strip out all those other overheads. I am not aware that we have that level of information; we have struggled to get hold of it.

Lord Hamilton:

Can you outline the potential for biomass? What weaknesses do you see in central government’s promotion of biomass?

Mr Goodall:

I will comment quickly on some of your earlier remarks. You mentioned centralisation and Europe. I agree with you. The EU is looking away from direct support for production to more land-based support. As we mentioned before, if there were a level playing field with agriculture and forestry — as in land-based support that includes forestry as part of someone’s holding — that would make a big difference in encouraging farmers to plant trees.

The carbon element is important. If we look at projections for the reduction of carbon emissions, the level that we will reach by 2050 will still include a significant amount of agricultural emissions, which is because they are difficult to reduce. They are a big part of the total amount of emissions. It could be seen as an encouraging incentive if people could consider how to introduce forestry on to their land holding with the aim of reducing the overall carbon footprint of their farm or estate.

Thank you very much for your helpful presentation, Mr Friel, Mr Goodall and Lord Hamilton. We will try to take on board your points.

I reiterate that all witnesses, including you, are invited to join us for lunch after the final evidence session. Moreover, I want to make the public aware that the Committee will plant a tree as a small symbol to contribute towards enhancing forest cover in Northern Ireland.

I invite the witnesses from the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU), Wesley Aston and Gregg Shannon. The floor is yours to make an oral presentation on the Forestry Bill. You are very welcome, gentlemen.

Mr Wesley Aston ( Ulster Farmers’ Union):

I apologise on behalf of our president, Graham Furey. He rescheduled a meeting for this afternoon, but he discovered that the rescheduled meeting was to be held this morning. He would have liked to have been here to show how seriously the UFU takes the Forestry Bill. I want to put that on record.

The Chairperson:

Please pass on our apologies to the president for inconveniencing him and tell him that we appreciate the points that will be made.

Mr Aston:

I am the policy director of the Ulster Farmers’ Union. I am accompanied by Gregg Shannon, who is the chairman of our legislation committee, which has been dealing specifically with the Forestry Bill.

Mr Gregg Shannon ( Ulster Farmers’ Union):

I thank the Committee for asking us to present oral evidence. We have already submitted written evidence; I am sure that copies of that are available to members.

I will outline the basic points as briefly as possible. Since we delivered our written evidence, we have met with the Forest Service. I am sure that the Committee will hear evidence from it next week, when it will outline its views of what we said to it.

The Chairperson:

You did not mince your words; you told the officials that the Bill is “draconian”. Has your view changed since you met them?

Mr G Shannon:

I do not think that there is a mincer big enough.

We understand the reasoning for having a new Bill. In my experience, it is always tidier to create a new Bill than to amend legislation continually and finish up with a row of Acts across the desk. A professional would be required to put all the words together before we know where we stood. A new Bill must last probably another 50 years. Many people would acknowledge that the current legislation is more or less past its sell-by date, and it seems silly to try to make it last another 50 years by amending it. We told the Forest Service that a new Bill would be better.

We used the word “draconian” because we feel that the Bill will not achieve its objectives. The power that the Forest Service wants to have over private land is draconian, and by “private land” I mean more than private forests. Moreover, we doubt whether anybody will willingly invest in forestry under the rules that the Forest Service has proposed. The previous witnesses to speak made a valid point. Although everything that the Forest Service wants to do is in the Bill, our committee could not see any vital new measures. I confess that I was not fully aware of the forestry management requirements. However, that convinces me more that nothing further is needed.

Our specific area of concern is the compulsory acquisition of land. The UFU comes at the matter from the private point of view, but if someone buys land, they will want access to it, and they should not buy it if there is no access to it. The Forest Service’s wanting more land for forestry is a slightly different issue to access, and the service may come up with some better ideas about that.

On the issue of protecting forest trees from damage, the views of the UFU can be explained very simply through the following statement: farmers do what they need to do within the confines of their own boundaries, and they do not go outside of those boundaries. The UFU has considerable worries about other people tramping over farmers’ land, not because it wants to refuse access or to stop them enjoying themselves, but because the issue of public liability has never been properly sorted out. Indeed, the Republic of Ireland tried to sort out that issue recently, but it was no more successful than us.

The UFU is concerned about the matter for reasons of safety and animal health. I would not trust a Forest Service employee any more than I would trust anyone else who is wandering on my land with a gun in their hands to kill a deer or some other animal. Indeed, if he were using a fairly powerful gun, it is likely that he will reach the next townland quite easily after killing the animal. The safety issue is paramount, and there will be other ways dealing with the matter.

Animal health is another issue of concern for farmers. I would not suggest that a Forest Service employee is unhealthy, but before coming on to my land, he could have been somewhere else and carried diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease, brucellosis and TB with him. The Department and the farmer have to carry the cost of such diseases. The less access that others have to farmers’ land, the better.

Reducing risk to farmers is becoming more important, particularly in England where the Government is pushing for the industry to carry more of the costs of disease control. There should also be less risk for the Department, but that issue has been ignored for a long time on the basis that TB would be eradicated in 20 to 30 years. However, if a further 50 years were added, we would still have the problem.

The UFU has similar feelings about the control of vegetation, and it would question why an individual landowner should carry the cost of creating a buffer zone on his own land. After all, he is trying to make a profit in much the same way that the Forest Service is trying to operate. It would be better if they were allowed to do that as well as they could using their own land. Some kind of payment would have to be made to farmers to allow them to do so, but that would only increase the risk of the Forest Service’s own operations becoming uneconomic.

For several reasons, the UFU agrees with the previous set of witnesses that felling licences are not required. First, the bureaucracy that would be involved is huge. Secondly, the Forest Service would require more employees to process the licences. Finally, when people are producing a plan and applying for a licence, it is clear from the draft Bill that it would be very difficult to get a request through that did not involve the replanting of trees. That could stop many people who are entering the industry dead in their tracks. No one will commit themselves to something for 15, 20, 30 or perhaps 100 years that they might be able to cut down but will never be able to get rid of.

There seems to be at least three issues. One is the amenity, which requires fairly large forests and attention to detail, because the growing of the trees is unlikely to provide the economic input for it. Secondly, there is the question of time. It is already acknowledged that forests are a tax-free asset; they become taxable only when they are cut down. That could be in 15, 20, 30 or 40 years, and for hardwoods, it could be 100 years. That is probably right, because nobody has the money to pay an impost on that production in the meantime. However, the people who invest have to think carefully, because they are not investing for themselves or for their sons or daughters; they are probably investing for the third or fourth generation down the track. That means that they forego income in the meantime.

It is difficult to see on a broad scale, although it could be possible on a national scale, how forestry could become a realistic and viable option for farmers and landowners. However, people will have land in certain areas on which planting is always the best thing, but they need the encouragement to do so. That has to be pinpointed on an individual owner basis; it cannot be done through a national plan.

The Chairperson:

Thank you very much for that presentation. I will go straight to a couple of points. The opposition to the felling licence seems to be not so much to the licence; it is opposition to the charge and, as you put your finger on, the bureaucracy for which people are then charged. There is a very important yet subtle distinction in that that we picked up from the previous contributors. I do not know whether you agree that it is recognised that there is a regulatory aspect for quality, standard and making sure that the wood comes from a legitimate source and that, therefore, there is a licensing point to be made. However, the issue is opposition. It was said that it would be perverse, which is a very strong and powerful word, to have a charge because it would turn the industry around in the wrong direction. I picked up that point from our previous set of witnesses. Do you agree that the charge is the issue?

Mr G Shannon:

Yes. Quite apart from the management system that has to be in place for wood to be traded at all, the other point is that we have existing forests that have been run without felling licences. We do not see why they would contribute, except control, which we do not want. Without a lot of questions being asked, we could remove the option to replant after forests are cut down.

That is the point. Neither GB nor the Republic of Ireland charges, so we should not have to set ourselves up with another licence charge.

We have talked to all the groups this morning about encouragement to plant. That is, essentially, an incentive to a person to plant. What should that look like in pounds, shillings and pence?

Mr Aston:

We obviously want landowners to have the opportunity to plant trees, but it is not the sort of thing that everyone will go out and do. As my colleague Mr Shannon said, everyone probably has a bit of land on which they could plant trees. The biggest problem here is not the level of the forestry grants; at the end of the day, that has to compete with what can be got from agriculture on that piece of land. It is probably the small scale of our farms; the value of land here, which is the highest in Europe; and the extremely long-term nature of forestry.

Farmers in Northern Ireland are not used to forestry; we pull trees out so that we can grow crops and keep livestock. The combination of the size of farms, the price of land and the long-term nature means that forestry is not something that everyone will want to take up. Even if grant levels were raised, there are tax and planning issues to consider. We do not see wholescale forestry occurring across Northern Ireland farms; it is just not going to happen. We want the system to be there for those who do want the opportunity, but we do not see it happening even if forestry grants are increased. I understand that there is an EU maximum on what can be paid in grants anyway, but it is all relative to what can be got from agriculture, the value of land in Northern Ireland and the attachment to that land.

Mr Elliott:

The Chairperson:

I feel sorry for your wife.

Mr Aston:

We could accept it more.

Mr W Clarke:

I agree with what Tom said about temporary access. I agree that it should exist. Tom said that, at times, it would be difficult to get the mature timber out of a small hole. Therefore, I see the need for temporary access to allow a farmer who diversifies into timber to be able to get the product out. Most farmers get on with each other and will allow shared access and make good. However, in a situation in which two neighbours do not agree, there must be that temporary measure to allow the timber to be taken out. I do not think that it has to be permanent.

I see a need for the removal of vegetation: for example, where whin or gorse is in close proximity to a forest, there is the danger that it could be set alight and destroy that forest. We are in south Down, which is where the greatest number of fires involving whin occurs. If a farmer refuses to cut the vegetation to create a buffer zone or a firebreak, then someone must come in and do that. Otherwise, there is the risk that a mature forest could be destroyed and hundreds of thousands of pounds could be lost. Therefore, there is a need for the removal of vegetation, but it should be framed as taking account of the dangers.

In relation to incentives and farmers getting a good return on their timber — you mentioned the tax on mature timber — is some sort of mechanism needed whereby the Department would enter into an agreement to buy back the timber for a certain price that both parties could sign up to as being a fair price? Would a guaranteed market price encourage people to become involved?

Mr G Shannon:

That is an interesting thought. However, our line is more about the flexibility of using the land for other purposes. If the forest is taken away in 30 years’ time, I am sure that Balcas Timber Ltd or another company would buy it at the commercial price at that time. No one can set the commercial price on the day the agreement is made. Under the current draft, everyone would still have to buy a felling licence and produce a management plan saying why they did not want to replant or change the timber. That sort of thing is a bigger drawback to the whole system than anything else. To be fair to the Forest Service, I doubt whether we would want to put it in the position where it would have to be the go-between guaranteeing to take the timber out. At that time, the market for timber could be flat on its back, and the Committee would be asking why the Forest Service entered into a contract in which it agreed to pay £30 a ton for it. We are talking about such long timescales that nothing perfect can be agreed. Everyone takes their chances.

The point that I was trying to make relates not so much to the tax issue per se but to the fact that when a farmer plants trees, it is unlike any other crop. The turnover does not happen for a minimum of 15 years for short coppice woodland, and it could take 100 years. That is a very long timescale in which to do without income and to be spending money, perhaps every year, doing what is necessary, such as pruning, fireproofing and so on. That is the real problem.

When it comes to the volumes of large estates, such as that of the Forest Service, it is a different matter, because the cost of one hectare of forest is probably not all that much. However, it is still a lot of money given the large volume of hectares. As the forests on such large estates were started perhaps 50 years ago, there is cash flow from which those estates can draw money. However, the individual private forester will not have cash flow to draw on for a long time.

Mr Aston:

I want to pick up on the point about vegetation. First, we understand the need for a buffer zone or a firebreak, which, effectively, is what Mr Clarke said. However, why should the landowner be forced to have that buffer zone on their land? Where there is new planting, a buffer zone can be created, or, where there is existing forest, a few trees can be cut down round the outside. Over and above that, there is concern about the stage at which vegetation is considered to be a fire hazard. Farmers do not want whin to get to the stage at which it is totally overgrown. However, in less favoured areas, where, for example, there is heather on land near trees, is that considered a fire hazard and, therefore, will that be controlled? Strictly speaking, if a firebreak is to be created, it should be created on the Forest Service’s land. That is the simplest way.

Mr G Shannon:

The impression that I got from the draft Bill was that the forestry division had not really consulted on or taken into account the problems that there would be for the animal health division, the countryside management scheme or areas of outstanding natural beauty. In areas of outstanding natural beauty, a lot of which are bordered by forests, the commitment is to let the gorse or heather grow, and that is the attraction of such areas.

Our members say to us that they are prepared to clear the land on a regular basis to keep the fire risk down, but there is a cost to doing that. They feel that, if the Forest Service wants that done, it should pay them for it.

Mr W Clarke:

I have one final point. I believe that the Ulster Farmers’ Union has a big role to play in driving issues forward for farmers. You must be very proactive in getting landowners and farmers involved in forestry, and you need to look at a short-term plan for diversification. Granted, there are planning issues around some diversification schemes, and I am aware that those issues exist, even in this area. In the short term, activity tourism from forestry, such as quad biking, scrambling, mountain biking, pony-trekking and paintballing, provides revenue for the farmer. There is a need for your organisation to drive that forward and to push the Planning Service, as I know that you do on a regular basis.

On the other point, again, it is about being proactive in encouraging farmers into timber production. As I mentioned in the previous evidence session, legislation will be coming down the line from Europe concerning emissions from agriculture — in particular, methane. The farming community will have to offset those emissions by planting more timber. In my opinion, it is do that or get rid of the cows. Instead of waiting until the last minute, when we will be forced by Europe to do something, we should be proactive and say that we will offset emissions by planting timber. If that is done at an early enough stage, there is a marketing opportunity for farmers. They will get a better premium for their produce by saying that they are offsetting those emissions.

Mr G Shannon:

You have touched on what will probably be the sorest point over the next number of years, namely, climate change. A researcher in New Zealand calculated the amount of methane that the cows in New Zealand produced and hitched that to the size of the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic. What has not been acknowledged is that the cows in New Zealand are still there in the same numbers; the size of the hole in the ozone layer has halved.

I would not fault the Forest Service, or even DARD, for this Bill. If the calculations were done properly, however, agriculture and forestry, and I would lump horticulture in with them, are about the only industries that can boast a positive annual reduction in CO2. I am not aware of any other industry in that plus position. In addition, the production of methane in the dairy herd has been reduced by about 15% since 1990. That is ongoing research, and amen to that. However, the real issue, and this is a more personal view, is that a very large assumption is made that climate change is due to only man-made activity. The recent research that is emerging, which put the explosive under Copenhagen and was why the Copenhagen climate change conference failed, is showing that CO2 levels rising in the future is practically a load of cobblers. That does not reduce the obligation on anybody in the world —

The Chairperson:

Gregg, I will not go down the load-of-cobblers route today, because we do not have enough time to have an inquiry into that. Let us keep to the simple matter of the Forestry Bill.

Mr G Shannon:

All that I was going to say was that it is up to us to reduce our output of CO2, and that applies to every industry, including agriculture.

The Chairperson:

I would like to make one point about scrambling in forests. As a motorcyclist, I would not recommend that. I can understand trials bikes being used in forests, but trees, bikes and speed usually lead to kaput for the rider.

I thank Gregg Shannon and Wesley Aston for presenting the Ulster Farmers’ Union case. I also invite you, as I have invited all our witnesses, to join members of the Committee for lunch. I am sure that we could deal on a less formal basis with some of the other points that have been raised and that that would lead to a very interesting discussion.

We now move to the final evidence session, and I welcome the representatives of the Countryside Access and Activities Network: Caro-lynne Ferris, Dawson Stelfox and Brian Murphy. I thank you for joining us , and I invite you to make your presentation.

Dr Caro-lynne Ferris (Countryside Access and Activities Network):

Thank you very much, Chair. The Countryside Access and Activities Network for Northern Ireland (CAAN) was established in 1999 by the Government as a consequence of one of the recommendations of Northern Ireland’s first countryside recreation strategy. We are an umbrella organisation that brings together bodies that are involved in outdoor recreation. Those bodies include those that participate in outdoor activities, provide for outdoor recreation, own and manage land on which outdoor recreation takes place, and are responsible for outdoor recreation policy.

We are responsible for the strategic development, promotion and management of outdoor recreation across the whole of Northern Ireland, both for the local community and for visitors. Our vision is simply to inspire outdoor recreation. We have a core staff of seven people. Our work focuses on six key areas, but the area of most relevance to the Forestry Bill is product development. Our product development programme seeks to provide facilities, not only those for the local community but those that will increase tourism in the area or lead to the creation of small businesses.

To date, our product development has led to the creation of more than 300 kilometres of walking and canoe trails, 30 kilometres of off-road family-cycling trails and 20 kilometres of off-road horse-riding trails. We have also developed 16 eco-trails linked to the sport of orienteering. We have secured about £4·5 million for our projects from more than 40 bodies and organisations. We have applications pending for about £4 million worth of projects, some of which we applied for through DARD’s rural development programme.

Subject to us securing funding, our development programme includes the development of three coastal canoe trails and the restoration of two old cottages as bothy-type accommodation, one of which is Portmoon on the north coast. We are also trying to develop six multi-use trail systems, which includes providing for horse riders, mountain bikers, walkers and people with accessibility problems. We have provided the Committee with a list of the sites that we are working on. We are also working on a major mountain-biking project. One part of that is in the Belfast City Council area, and we are also trying to develop a world cycling centre at Magheramorne quarry just outside Larne. We are working with the Forest Service, Down District Council, and Newry and Mourne District Council to develop a short-break destination for the forests in Castlewellan and Rostrevor.

Forests are key to the provision of a wide range of outdoor recreational activities. That is particularly pertinent in Northern Ireland given our poor access legislation. As the Ulster Farmers’ Union alluded to in the previous evidence session, the need to access public land in Northern Ireland is exacerbated because of our occupiers’ liability legislation, which is wholly inadequate to protect farmers when visitors access their land. The demand for places at which to take part in outdoor recreation is increasing. Research that we carried out recently for Sport NI and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board has shown that there has been a 152% increase in outdoor-recreation participation since 1995. Consequently, there is a greater demand for venues at which people can take part in outdoor activities. Activity tourism is recognised by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board as one of its winning themes. Therefore, the Government must set an example by opening up its land to an ever-expanding recreational community.

The Forestry Commission in Great Britain has recognised that forestry is not just about trees but that it is also about people. There has been a move away from timber harvesting and towards forestry for rural development, recreation access and tourism, economic regeneration, the environment and conservation. The Forestry Commission recognises that it has a clear responsibility and a statutory requirement to provide for outdoor recreation for the public.

Even in the Republic of Ireland, Coillte, despite its being a commercial company with no obligation to provide for recreation, believes that recreation is its licence to operate.

In Scotland, the Scottish Forestry Strategy highlights the importance of forestry to the improved health and well-being of people in its communities and its contribution to the growth of the economy through the development of competitive and innovative businesses. The importance of forests to Scotland’s tourist industry is further evidenced by the forest tourism initiative.

The Forestry Commission also plays a significant role in addressing problems with the nation’s health and well-being through its Active Woods initiative. The Countryside Access and Activities Network (CAAN) is doing something similar through its own project, Venture Outdoors – Creating Healthy Communities, which seeks to address barriers faced by the disabled, minority ethnic groups and less well-off communities when accessing the outdoors for recreation.

The Forestry Commission is concerned that all age groups in society are catered for. It has been doing much work on nature play by trying to get young people into forests for free play, such as building dens.

The recreational use of forests in GB contributes £585 million to the economy. In Scotland alone, 18 million people visit forests every year and spend more than £120 million. Overall, the social and environmental value of forests in Great Britain is £1·5 billion.

CAAN welcomes the Forestry Bill but believes that it must be strengthened. It should place greater emphasis on the contribution that forests can play in health and well-being, rural development, tourism and economic regeneration. The Bill also provides for a pedestrian right of access. The extension of that right to cyclists and horse riders would bring Northern Ireland legislation more into line with that of GB.

The Bill should be more explicit in its requirement for the Forest Service to provide for recreation. The Bill should make the Department duty-bound to provide recreational opportunities in forests. It is interesting to note that, back in the 1970s, Northern Ireland’s Forest Service was recognised as leading in the provision of recreational activities in forests. Now, however, Northern Ireland is 15 years behind the rest of GB and five years behind the Republic of Ireland.

The placing of a duty on the Forest Service actively to provide for recreation would alleviate our concern that its current approach to developing recreation on its estate is too narrow. It would encourage a move away from the current practice of haphazard commercial development to a much more holistic and strategic approach to planning in forests.

The few recreational developments proactively led by the Forest Service are those that it believes will generate it most income, for example, the high ropes courses. Although we welcome such new activities on its land, that cherry-picking approach fails to take account of the much greater benefit that could be reaped by the local and wider community through proper strategic planning of forest recreation, as was evidenced during a field trip to Dalby forest on the North York Moors.

A recent investment of £4·3 million in that forest resulted in its becoming a regional centre of excellence for sustainable economic activity. Dalby forest now has a refurbished courtyard, a visitor centre, craft workshops, office accommodation, a community resource centre, mountain bike trails, a bike hire facility, a cafe, and a Go Ape high-wire adventure course. It also holds open-air music concerts. As a result, the forest has experienced a 33% increase in visitor numbers.

CAAN strongly advocates the strategic planning of forest recreation. For some time, we have been trying to create something similar to Dalby forest in Tollymore forest park and, more recently, in Glenariff forest park. The facilities at both forest parks fall well below the expectations of local people and tourists. CAAN’s earlier approaches to the Forest Service failed. More recently, however, we received permission from the Forest Service to initiate two studies, potentially paid for by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, to assess the tourism and recreation potential of Tollymore and Glenariff.

Those studies will assess how those forest parks can be enhanced to attract new visitors and, consequently, create new sustainable businesses and employment opportunities, thereby increasing the value of the forests’ assets. We await the outcome of our funding application to the Tourist Board, but it would a huge disappointment were we not successful, given our partnership arrangements for those studies with Down District Council, Moyle District Council, Sport Northern Ireland, the Mourne Heritage Trust, the Causeway Coast and Glens Heritage Trust, and the Tourist Board.

If the Department were to legislate for the Forest Service to have a clear responsibility and statutory requirement to provide outdoor recreation to the public, it would resolve the current difficulties that several councils and other organisations face in finding an appropriate working-model arrangement that is acceptable to the Forest Service when creating recreational facilities on its land.

All recreational facilities, such as mountain bike trails, horse riding trails, walking trails and orienteering trails in England, Scotland and Wales and the Republic of Ireland, are managed and maintained by the Forestry Commission and Coillte. In addition, the Forestry Commission and Coillte take on the liability for those trails and any reinstatement costs should they be damaged by timber harvesting. That is not the case in Northern Ireland, and the current inability to find a suitable working-model arrangement with Down District Council and Newry and Mourne District Council may result in a £2 million mountain bike project for Castlewellan and Rostrevor forest parks not going ahead.

In conclusion, CAAN’s attempts to develop a wide range of activities on forest land has been greatly hindered by the existing legislation, because it has allowed the Forest Service legitimately to shy away from any efforts to develop social and recreational activity on its land. Forests in Northern Ireland, like those in Scotland, provide the greatest potential to provide the largest single suite of outdoor recreation infrastructure. It is also acknowledged that the recreation and tourism potential of some forests can far outweigh the value of timber production.

Therefore, CAAN hopes that the Bill will unlock the potential of Northern Ireland’s forests and radically change the Forest Service’s current responsibilities and priorities regarding recreation and tourism within its estate. We hope that, in turn, that will lead to the Forest Service’s engagement with partners such as CANN to develop its land for the betterment of society as a whole, particularly for local communities and visitors coming to Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson:

Thank you for that excellent presentation on a subject that the Committee has wanted to explore for some time. I am glad that we now have the opportunity to do so. Prior to your presentation, I was of the view that the Bill was light on exploring recreation and tourism opportunities. However, from what you said, it is even worse than that. The Bill is, in fact, deficient in those areas. We now have an opportunity to get to the kernel of those issues and to propose evidence-based amendments that will allow us, as you quite rightly said, to “unlock the potential” of our forests. That exciting opportunity could operate side by side with the commercial needs of sectors that need to make money from forests.

You cited the example of Dalby forest and mentioned the potential for Tollymore forest. Will those projects be commercially successful? How viable are they? It is all very well for us to have an ambition to create more recreational opportunities and increase tourism, but, quite frankly, if the proposals are not economically successful and sustainable, they will get nowhere.

Mr Dawson Stelfox (Countryside Access and Activities Network):

There is no doubt that those outdoor activity businesses are viable and sustainable. The question and dilemma facing the Forest Service and DARD have centred on investment: who invests, where does the investment come from, and who gets the money out at the other end? That is one of the challenges. The benefit of recreation sites is that they encourage more people to visit, and they stay and use pubs, restaurants and other facilities. That helps the local tourism economy and the local people. However, they are not necessarily the people who invest the money in the first place to help to develop the sites.

I will cut to the chase. The provision of recreational activity is something that the Forest Service “may” or “should” do, but it does not do so at the moment. For whatever reason, we have moved from a situation in which the first forest park in the British Isles was developed in Northern Ireland at Tollymore. That was the model for opening up forests to the community. We have moved from a situation of being the leader in that regard to being way behind the game. That is partly because the nature of outdoor activity and tourism has changed. It is not a passive industry; it does not simply involve people going for a walk on a Sunday afternoon anymore. It includes planned activities, most of which have an economic base and involve putting in place an infrastructure and delivering an outdoor experience.

The market has changed. In our opinion, the Forest Service has not kept up with that market and has failed to recognise the changing needs, desires and economic activity. The Forest Service’s attitude towards recreation is wrong, in that it treats it as an optional extra. Even when the Forest Service does recognise its value, it tries to offload responsibility for putting it in place and managing it to other bodies, such as district councils and private operators.

The Chairperson:

Mr Stelfox:

We have worked and negotiated with the Forest Service for many years. Some activities are relatively easy to set up. For example, the family cycling trails at Gosford forest park largely use the existing infrastructure. It is a relatively low key activity that does not involve much change to the existing environment and has worked out OK.

However, when it comes to developing the forests specifically for recreation, there is a gap between the traditional, passive use of forests and actively putting in place recreational facilities that are specifically designed as contemporary tourism activities. The Forest Service has not realised the potential of that gap. We have had difficulties with convincing the Forest Service of the benefits. For whatever reason, the Forest Service focuses on its own responsibilities in its forests, including its revenue and staffing interests, but seems to be unable to consider the wider benefits to society. We get on well with foresters at an individual level, but, at the top level, the Forest Service is not committed to providing for recreation. We have no difficulty working with the vast majority of Forest Service staff on the ground, some of whom are active in recreational activities such as mountain biking, but the policy must change.

Mr Elliott:

Your advice to the Forest Service seems to be falling on deaf ears.

Mr Stelfox:

Caro-lynne mentioned the grants that are in place for a large mountain biking project in partnership with Down District Council and Newry and Mourne District Council. The signs are that it may not happen and that the money will have to be handed back because of the Forest Service’s failure to agree with the councils on how the management of that project will work. We regard that as a failure of the Forest Service, not the councils.

Mr Elliott:

Will you clarify that you are not against the commercial production of timber?

Mr Stelfox:

Absolutely. We recognise that, primarily, the forests were planted for that reason and that timber must be cut and replanted. It is a question of marrying that with the recreational requirements.

Mr W Clarke:

I declare an interest as a member of Down District Council. I share your frustration about trying to develop the projects with Newry and Mourne District Council and Down District Council. Everyone to whom I speak has serious concerns about the conduct of the Forest Service. T he people on the ground are not the problem. I met some of them here today, and they are sound about the whole project. Even the chief executive of the Forest Service is sound, and the permanent secretary has bought into the importance of providing for recreation, as has the Minister. It seems to be a problem with people in middle management trying to get their heads around the fact that things have changed. The legislation must ensure that they have changed for good.

The two key elements that the legislation must include are a duty on the Forest Service to provide for recreation — it is not an optional extra, but a duty that it must fulfil — and the right of access to the forests. All sorts of qualifications could be added: for example, shooting rights could be leased in some forests. I attended a highly successful motorbike trial held among the trees in Donard wood. It was extremely scary, but the guys were so good that it was incredible to watch.

Although we are primarily interested in walking, cycling and horse-riding, many other activities can be provided for in forests, including motorised activities and other events. However, good planning and management are required, so that all those activities can take place alongside timber production. In our view, that overall planning and management is not happening.

Mr B Murphy:

We do not want to concentrate on activities such as mountain biking. I would not do it, but Caro-lynne does enjoy going down mountains on a bike. The premier trail designer in the world has already designed trails for us in Castlewellan and Rostrevor. He told us that, particularly in Rostrevor, we have a world-class product, not merely a local one. That brings wider benefits to the whole area. We have many plans to develop all the other forests in a holistic way. As a wee boy, I was fortunate to visit Tollymore forest park 50 years ago and, as a city boy, it blew my mind away. Fifty years later, I keep coming back, and I am still blown away by the beauty and majesty of the forests.

The Chairperson:

That is a good point, well made. It takes us back to Caro-lynne Ferris’s terminology of unlocking the potential of the forests. If we can produce a piece of legislation that achieves, it would be a huge service to the community. Government exists to assist, rather than inhibit, the community.

I would appreciate your leaving behind a copy of your presentation, as we would like an opportunity to study it at length. Furthermore, if there is anything about which you wish to write to us, or if you want to frame formal proposals about how you want the Bill to be amended, we will take your comments on board. The Committee is at the stage of helping the Department to shape legislation that will prove to be useful. The points that you made today were extremely helpful. Thank you for your presentation, and we invite you to join us for lunch.

COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT(Hansard)

Forestry Bill

21 January 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Witnesses:

The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr):

Professor Sue Christie ( Northern Ireland Environment Link):

Mr Geoff Nuttall ( Northern Ireland Environment Link):

The Chairperson:

Mr Nuttall:

Professor Christie:

The Chairperson:

Mr Nuttall:

The Chairperson:

Mr Nuttall:

The Chairperson:

Mr Nuttall:

The Chairperson:

Mr Nuttall:

The Chairperson:

Mr Nuttall:

Professor Christie:

The Chairperson:

Mr Nuttall:

The Chairperson:

Professor Christie:

The Chairperson:

Professor Christie:

The Chairperson:

Professor Christie:

The Chairperson:

Professor Christie:

The Chairperson:

Professor Christie:

Mr Nuttall:

Professor Christie:

The Chairperson:

Mr Nuttall:

Professor Christie:

The Chairperson:

Professor Christie:

The Chairperson:

Professor Christie:

Mr Nuttall:

Mr Elliott:

Professor Christie:

Mr Nuttall:

Professor Christie:

Mr Elliott:

Professor Christie:

Mr Elliott:

Professor Christie:

Mr Elliott:

Professor Christie:

Mr Elliott:

Mr Nuttall:

Mr Elliott:

Professor Christie:

Mr Nuttall:

Mr Elliott:

Mr Nuttall:

Mr Elliott:

Mr Nuttall:

Mr Elliott:

Mr Nuttall:

Professor Christie:

The Chairperson:

Professor Christie:

Mr Nuttall:

Mr W Clarke:

Professor Christie:

Mr W Clarke:

Professor Christie:

Mr W Clarke:

Professor Christie:

Mr Nuttall:

Professor Christie:

Mr W Clarke:

Professor Christie:

OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)