Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1975 > Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities > Report No. 19 - Forestry, Financial Measures to Aid

REPORT

1. Introduction

The Joint Committee has considered an amended proposal for a Council Directive (R/1131/75) on forestry measures which the Commission sent to the Council on 23rd April, 1975. The Commission sent its original proposal for a Directive (R/559/74) to the Council on 26th February, 1974, but, following consultation with the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, decided to exercise its powers under Article 149 of the EEC Treaty and amend its original proposal.

2. Forestry and the Common Agricultural Policy

By its resolution of 25th May, 1971 on the new guidelines of the Common Agricultural Policy, the Council of Ministers decided to adopt, on a proposal from the Commission, measures to encourage afforestation. The proposal now being examined is a response to that decision.

The immediate object of the measures proposed is to improve agrarian structures and so contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy. On a wider plane the suggested measures are directed towards an effective use of land in which forestry, agriculture and the environment are harmonised.

Forestry is expected to contribute to the reform of agrarian structures by providing employment where opportunities for agricultural employment are declining and by putting to good use land no longer suitable or required for agriculture. In the longer term, the production of timber should benefit the economy of Member States all of which are net importers of forestry products. Finally, the Commission’s proposals expressly acknowledge the value of forests as a social amenity and their importance to the environment generally.

3. Scope of Proposed Directive

The proposed Directive would oblige Member States to establish a system of financial aids to encourage (a) the afforestation of marginal agricultural and uncultivated areas; (b) the development of low-production woodlands; (c) the establishment of shelter belts; (d) the construction and improvement of forest roads; and (e) the creation of recreational facilities.

The proposal would permit the aids to take the form of grants or fiscal incentives or interest rate subsidies or any combination of these. Aids would be available for site preparation, including drainage and the application of fertiliser, for the supply of plants and seeds and a contribution towards the cost of planting and sowing, for maintenance and protective measures (for an eight-year period), for the construction and improvement of forest roads and for the creation of recreational facilities e.g. paths and picnic sites.

Provision is to be made for a review of the operation of the proposals after five years and the estimated time for completion of the measures is to be set at ten years.

4. Detailed Proposals

The Commission’s amended proposals would make the following provisions:—

(a) For private forestry, Member States would be obliged to make available aids amounting to not less than 60% or more than 90% of the cost of the operations described in the previous section of this report. Such aids would not be granted to meet the cost of land but Member States would have the option of paying a capital grant for the afforestation of marginal agricultural or uncultivated land up to a maximum of 240 units of account per hectare (2.5 acres) if such land had been previously used for agriculture for a period of at least ten years;

(b) Member States would be entitled to vary aids not only between the limits indicated but also between regions or according to other relevant criteria e.g. the species to be planted. A preferential level of aids could be applied in respect of joint applications rather than individual ones;

(c) Beneficiaries would be required to undertake not to resort to agriculture on the lands for at least a further ten years;

(d) The overall Community contribution to the cost would be 25% subject to certain maximum rates of contribution for particular measures;

(e) For State forestry the Community contribution would be available only for (i) recreational facilities and (ii) afforestation if less than 2% of the total land area of a region consists of woodland which is not owned or leased by the State;

Sellers of land to the State for forestry purposes would also qualify for the discretionary capital grant of 240 units of account per hectare if this grant were implemented here. To that extent the Community could, therefore, subvent 25% of the State’s land purchase costs.

It will be of interest to note that the provision referred to at (ii) above would permit of subsidisation by the Community of State afforestation in Ireland but not elsewhere.

(f) In any one year ⅔ of the area of each project and 4/5 of the area of all projects must consist of land abandoned by agriculture for less than ten years; and

(g) The area to be used for forestry must be sufficiently large to permit a reasonable standard of management.

5. State Forestry

Under the Commission’s original proposal, land owned or held on lease by the State would have been largely excluded from Community aid. Assistance would, however, have been available for the creation of recreational facilities and, if the State opted to pay such grants generally, a Community contribution would have been payable in respect of a capital grant of 200 units of account per hectare for land sold to the State for afforestation provided such land had been previously used for agriculture for a period of at least ten years.

The Committee on Agriculture of the European Parliament in its report on the original Directive supported the exclusion of State forestry for the following reasons:—

(a) the greater part of the land area in the Community which could be utilised for forestry belongs or is leased either to private farmers or to public bodies other than the State;

(b) the management of lands belonging to the State is generally of a high level and consequently does not justify additional aid from the financial resources of the Community; and

(c) provision has never been made in the past for direct financial aid from the Community to the Member States.

Whatever about the position in the Community generally, the Joint Committee cannot accept that these conclusions do justice to the Irish position. In Ireland there is only a small percentage of forests in private hands. The State is the proprietor of 90% of our forests and does 95% of the planting. As to the reason set out at (b) above, it would seem that although the aim is to bring additional land into forestry, the Agriculture Committee considers that the Community subvention is better directed into second class rather than first class forestry.

The revised proposal by the Commission retains the original provisions for State afforestation, the optional capital grant being increased to 240 units of account per hectare. It would, however, in addition, provide a subvention for State afforestation of marginal agricultural and uncultivated areas in regions of which less than 2% of the total land consists of woodland which is not owned or held on lease by the State. The last named provision would permit subsidisation of State afforestation in Ireland but would exclude subsidisation of State involvement in the restocking of unproductive or low-production woodland, the establishment and improvement of shelter belts and the construction and improvement of forest roads.

The Joint Committee recognises that the Commission’s amended proposal is an improvement from an Irish point of view though it must record its disappointment at the limitations imposed on assistance for State forestry generally. In particular, it regrets the exclusion of forestry roads.

6. Land covered by Proposal

In the original proposal the emphasis was very much towards the taking of land out of agriculture. Assistance was to be available for “the afforestation of agricultural land and of uncultivated land”. Under the revised proposal this emphasis has been softened and aid is to be available for “the afforestation of marginal agricultural land and of uncultivated areas which are suited for forestry”.

The Joint Committee welcomes this amendment which it regards as necessary in Irish circumstances.

7. Conclusions of Joint Committee

The Joint Committee is strongly in favour both from an economic and environmental point of view of the afforestation of marginal land or land not being used for agricultural purposes. At present there is no strong forestry tradition in the private sector and the Joint Committee believes that the development of private forestry would be welcome if it complemented the State’s forestry programme.

The Joint Committee has carefully considered possible deleterious effects on the State’s forestry programme of encouragement of private forestry. The level of assistance proposed is quite high and it might be argued that it would have the effect of attracting investment which would so reduce the intake of land as to seriously disrupt the State’s programme. Again it might be suggested that such investment might militate against the subsidisation of State afforestation from Community funds since this would depend on less than 2% of the total land area of a region being woodland which is not owned or leased by the State.

In the Joint Committee’s view the tendency at present is for the conversion of marginal or uncultivated land to productive agricultural purposes. Notwithstanding the high level of assistance proposed, the Joint Committee does not accept that the Directive, if accepted, would affect this tendency to any appreciable extent. On the second possible objection the Joint Committee understands that less than 1% of the total land area of this country could be described as privately owned woodland at present and it cannot believe that a figure of 2% could be reached in the ten years which the Directive is intended to cover.

The Joint Committee, therefore, concludes that the State could safely encourage private persons to avail of the benefits of the proposed Directive without fear for its own programme. If, therefore, the Directive is adopted, the Joint Committee would urge the Government to bring to public attention by widespread publicity for the incentives, the many values of planting trees and of providing shelter belts on private holdings and to seek to ensure that such work is carried out to the best aesthetic advantage. It would be desirable, also, if the planting of deciduous trees were encouraged.

If the exigencies of the financial situation allow, the Joint Committee would favour fixing grants at the maximum permissible rates. The total expenditure should not be great while the benefits could be considerable.

It is understood that the amended proposal will be further considered by the Agricultural Structures Committee and that the Irish representatives will continue to press for a further extension of the Community subvention to State afforestation. The Joint Committee believes that there is a good case for extending such assistance at least to the construction and improvement of forest roads.

One positive benefit which the Joint Committee would expect to ensue from the implementation of the proposal is the provision of more and better recreational facilities in the State forests. Moreover, it observes with approval that maintenance work, for which Community assistance would be available, would include measures for combating forest fires.

Finally, the Joint Committee notes that areas to be used for forestry must be in sufficiently large units to permit a reasonable standard of management. In its view it is important to seek to ensure that a specific area, too large to make the Directive of assistance to Irish landowners, is not included in the Directive. A minimum of more than 5 acres would be undesirable.

(Signed) CHARLES J. HAUGHEY,

Chairman of the Joint Committee.

10th December, 1975.