Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate

Nature Restoration Law and Land Use Review: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the nature of restoration law and the land use review. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Dr. Elaine McGoff from the Sustainable Water Network. We are joined online from the Irish Environment Network by Mr. Fintan Kelly; from the Irish Farmers Association by Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan, environment senior policy officer, Mr. Paul O'Brien, environment and rural affairs chair, and Mr. Tadhg Buckley, director of policy; and from the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association by its president, Mr. Vincent Roddy, its vice president, Mr. Micheál McDonnell, and policy adviser, Mr. Joe Condon. I welcome also Ms Sadhbh O'Neill, co-ordinator at Stop Climate Chaos.

Before we begin, I wish to read out the following note on privilege. I remind our guests of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise nor make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks, and it is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members of the committee are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect they should not comment on, criticise nor make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members that they are allowed to participate in the meeting only if they are physically located in the Leinster House complex. In this regard, I ask all members prior to making their contribution, if they are joining us online, to confirm they are on the grounds of Leinster House.

I invite Dr. McGoff to make her opening statement.

Dr. Elaine McGoff

I am the natural environment officer with An Taisce. An Taisce is a member of the Sustainable Water Network, SWAN, of which I am vice chair, and I am presenting the collective views of SWAN here today. I have a PhD in freshwater ecology and an advanced diploma in planning and environmental law.

Waterways are very much a product of their landscape. They are the ultimate truth tellers. Whatever is happening in the surrounding landscape will, ultimately, show up in the water quality, and that is what we are seeing in an Irish context. We are in the midst of an ever-worsening water quality crisis, with the EPA increasingly highlighting the deteriorating situation. Half of our rivers and lakes are considered polluted and the EPA has highlighted the alarming declines in our estuaries, two thirds of which are now considered polluted. The top four pressures on our water quality are, in order of magnitude, agriculture, hydromorphology, forestry and urban wastewater, three of which relate directly to how we are managing our land.

In terms of agriculture, one of the biggest issues relates to nutrient pollution from animals, fertilisers and slurry, and nitrogen is a problem especially in the south and south east. "Hydromorphology" is a term with which I assume many members may be less familiar. It relates to changes to the physical structure of a water body, such as channelisation, dredging and land drainage. It can have fundamental impacts on how the water body functions, the species it can support and how healthy it is. Badly sited and managed forestry leads to silt runoff and the acidification of waterways and can have detrimental impacts on one of our most critically threatened species, the freshwater pearl mussel. Forestry has the greatest impact on what are called our high-status sites, that is, the best of the best, our pristine waters. Since the 1980s, we have seen a dramatic decline in these, from more than 900 to about 20 throughout country. Finally, there is urban wastewater treatment, the failures of which should be a national scandal but, for the purposes of today's discussion on land use, I will set that pressure aside.

There can be multiple benefits from well-planned nature restoration, with co-benefits for water quality, biodiversity and climate mitigation, in addition to health and amenity benefits for communities. As outlined in the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, nature restoration increases resilience to extreme weather events such as floods and droughts, mitigating their impact and providing for greater adaptation, including improved long-term food security.

There can be trade-offs with some climate mitigation measures, however, such as with rapid and widespread afforestation like that modelled in the recent EPA land use synthesis report which, if it is done wrong, could have significant negative impacts on water quality and biodiversity.

This is a complicated picture and it is imperative that we look at it in a holistic way over the medium to long term, not just through the lens of climate benefits or that of short-term economic impact. We need to manage land in an integrated way in order that land use can meet the multiple goals, while recognising the trade-offs and synergies between them and balancing environmental, social and economic outcomes. The only way to achieve that is with the support and involvement of farmers and communities.

Restoration of wetlands, including peatland, will be critical to an effective catchment-based land use strategy for climate mitigation and adaptation, in addition to addressing water pollution and reversing biodiversity loss. Wetland loss has been particularly stark in Ireland. By a recent estimate, Ireland has lost 90% of our wetlands, which is more than any other country in the world. We at SWAN are strongly supportive of a national water and wetland restoration programme and have called on the Government for a prohibition on wetland drainage. We have also called for a review of the Arterial Drainage Act under which the Office of Public Works, OPW, dredges thousands of kilometres of Irish waterways annually, maintaining them in a perennially unnatural state. However, the current draft plan for managing water quality, namely, the draft river basin management plan, lacks ambition and does not reflect the systematic, strategic and landscape scale change required for addressing wetland loss.

Greater efforts are needed to restore freshwater ecosystems and the natural functions of rivers. This is reflected by the nature restoration law objective to restore at least 25,000 km of rivers into free-flowing rivers by 2030 through the removal of barriers and the restoration of floodplains and wetlands. The need for lateral connectivity, in other words, reconnecting rivers with their flood plains, is not reflected in the draft river basin management plan, nor is it an obligation under the water framework directive. It is a critical element for allowing rivers to function naturally, however, and pertinently from a climate adaptation standpoint, it provides flood attenuation and alleviation; it slows the flow. In fact, many countries are actively relocating people outside of their floodplains to facilitate this reconnection for that very reason. Increased flood events are an unavoidable consequence of climate breakdown, so it is in our future whether we choose to mitigate for that or not.

In conclusion, the nature restoration law in combination with the land use review could provide an invaluable lever to address the ongoing failures in land management and critical gaps in policy. We are in the final cycle of the river basin management plan but the current draft plan sorely lacks ambition and will not achieve good status for our water bodies. All life revolves around access to clean water. It is imperative we bear that in mind in terms of our discussions here today. Clearly, fundamental changes are necessary in how we protect waterways and how we manage land has a massive bearing on that. We believe that nature restoration, in particular the restoration of rivers and wetlands, including peatlands and organic soils, is one of the best investments Ireland can make. Given what we are facing, we simply cannot afford to not do it.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

I thank Dr. McGoff for her opening statement. I will go now to Mr. Fintan Kelly of the Irish Environment Network who is joining us remotely.

Mr. Fintan Kelly

I thank the committee for inviting us to present to members today. I am the agriculture and land use policy and advocacy officer of the Environmental Pillar, which is an advocacy coalition that works to represent the views of the Irish environmental sector. Comprised of 32 environmental NGOs, the Environmental Pillar works to promote environmental sustainability and the protection of Ireland’s natural environment.

Globally, peatlands support threatened biodiversity and provide essential ecosystem services to society such as climate change adaptation and mitigation, water regulation and human well-being. Peatlands are the most important terrestrial ecosystem when it comes to carbon sequestration. Covering a mere 3% to 4% of the world's land area, they contain up to one third of the world’s soil carbon, which is twice as much as all the world’s forests combined.

Ireland proportionally supports one of the greatest peatland areas in Europe. Unfortunately, Ireland has one of the worst records in the world when it comes to peatland and wetland loss, having lost more than 90% in the last 300 years. Ireland also has one of the highest proportions of degraded peatland area in Europe. The Irish Peatland Conservation Council estimates that 75% of Irish peatlands are not functioning hydrologically or ecologically and biodiversity has suffered immensely as a consequence.

Despite this, Ireland is still home to a high proportion of some of Europe’s most threatened peatland habitats, including 60% of Europe’s raised bog habitat.

While healthy peatlands are an ally in our efforts to fight climate change, the drainage and degradation of peatlands have resulted in them being a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the EPA, Ireland’s land use, land use change and forestry, LULUCF, sector was a net source of 4.8 million tonnes CO2 eq in 2018 and is projected to increase to 7.1 million tonnes CO2 eq in 2030. Grassland is the largest net source of emissions within the sector. The main source of emissions is the drainage of an estimated 337,000 ha of organic soils, which emit 8.3 million tonnes CO2 eq. Wetlands, including peatlands, are a net source of emissions of 2.5 million tonnes CO2 eq. Recent research has found that annual mean CO2 emissions from afforested peatlands in Ireland are around 6 tonnes per hectare per year. This is three times greater than the current figures used in Ireland’s reporting to the United Nations.

According to the EPA’s land use review, only modelling scenarios which combined substantial peatland restoration and rewetting of up to 90% of drained organic soils were capable of delivering net-zero emissions from the combined agriculture, forestry and land use sector by 2050. This echos the previous findings of the Climate Change Advisory Council, CCAC, and highlights the scale of the challenge we face. The EPA identified peatland rewetting and restoration as one of the best policy options available to deliver positive benefits for climate, biodiversity and water. Unfortunately, it also found that existing national policies fall well short of what is necessary to reach zero emissions by mid-century.

At an EU level, the nature restoration law proposes a range of targets and timelines to turn the tide of biodiversity loss and climate change. One of the most significant elements of the current proposal is Article 9.4, which sets targets to restore and rewet drained peatlands and organic soils under agricultural use. Our understanding is that Ireland has in general been negative towards the nature restoration law during EU negotiations and is one of the member states opposed to the existing rewetting targets on the grounds they are too onerous. This is despite the fact that the proposed targets for peat soils are less ambitious than existing national targets. For example, the nature restoration law proposes 7.5% of organic soils in agricultural use be rewetted to some degree by 2030, while the Climate Action Plan 2023 has a 24% rewetting target. While we agree greater clarity is needed from the Commission on how restoration will be financed, the nature restoration law is a major opportunity to garner EU support for our existing national commitments. We have called on Irish leaders to increase the scope and ambition of the nature restoration law. The challenge for decision-makers is how can the nature restoration law help us to collectively improve peatland management as a nature-based solution to biodiversity loss and climate change while supporting the well-being of communities living in peatland landscapes.

There has understandably been concern around the implications of rewetting for farmers. Our interpretation of the nature restoration law proposal is that rewetting is consistent with existing policies targeting reduced management intensity rather than implying full rewetting, and this was confirmed to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine in January. Raising the water table of drained peat soils in agricultural use can greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions without necessarily halting their productive use. Research has shown that for every 10 cm of reduction in water table depth, a reduction can be achieved in the net warming impact of emissions by the equivalent of at least 3 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year.

Farmers and communities must be central in shaping any future measures. Wherever possible, management interventions should look to deliver multiple environmental and social benefits and reward practitioners for the ecosystem services provided. We have the perfect delivery mechanism in Ireland’s results-based agri-environment schemes and we welcome the FarmPEAT and farm carbon European Innovation Partnership, EIP, projects, which are working to create a blueprint for future interventions. More projects like these are needed, and quickly.

We recently wrote to relevant Ministers calling for the Government to deliver on the commitments in the programme for Government to reform the outdated legal mandates of Coillte and Bord na Móna. We are strongly of the view that public land must be utilised in the public interest and that all public bodies must be mandated to lead in Ireland’s response to climate change and biodiversity loss. Coillte and Bord na Móna manage 7% and 1%, respectively, of Ireland and are the State’s largest peatland landowners. At a time when we are asking more of private landowners, it is critically important the State is seen to lead from the front. Public land must be utilised in the public interest and Irish people must have a greater say in how that is achieved.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

I thank the Chair and committee members for inviting the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, to address them today. I am joined by Mr. Tadhg Buckley, IFA director of policy, and Ms Geraldine O’Sullivan, IFA environmental senior policy executive. It is important that we acknowledge that farmers will be the most impacted by the outcome of both the nature restoration law and the land use review. Agricultural land accounts for approximately 67% of Ireland’s total land area while forests account for approximately 11% of the total land area, of which 50% is predominantly owned and managed by farmers. Farmers, as custodians of the environment, are the "boots on the ground" to maintain and enhance biodiversity on their farms. They have a great affinity with their local landscapes and ecosystems and are intrinsically linked to these landscapes, sharing knowledge, skills and practices from one generation to the next.

Irish farmland is a significant reservoir of biodiversity with, on average, between 12% and 14% of farms providing space for nature. It is important that farmers’ investment and the positive changes that have been taking place on farms in recent years are fully recognised. Some 33% of the farmland area in Ireland, compared with an EU average of 13%, is under agri-environment schemes. Irish farmers have participated on a voluntary basis in these schemes since 1994, thereby enhancing farmland biodiversity.

In June 2022, the European Commission formally adopted the proposed nature restoration law, a key element of the EU biodiversity strategy. The proposed regulation will require each member state to develop a national restoration plan to clearly identify restoration measures, which together cover at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea area, by 2030 and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. Under the proposal, national restoration plans would need to be submitted within two years of the regulation coming into force. Under the proposed regulation, the EU will impose legally binding targets on Ireland until the year 2050 across a broad range of ecosystems, from forests and agricultural land to rivers and marine habitats, to meet the targets and obligations.

Negotiations are ongoing with the European Parliament and the Council on the proposed regulation, with more than 2,000 amendments being considered. Trilogues between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission are expected to take place in mid-2023, and the indicative timeframe for the regulation to come into force is 2024. As negotiations proceed, it is vital that the three pillars of sustainability – economic, social and environmental – are equally taken into account. There must be a balancing of interests without giving priority to a single aspect. The impact on food security and food and timber production as well as farmers' standard of living must be fully considered as part of the negotiations.

The regulation for farmland habitats proposes to increase grassland butterflies and farmland birds, the stock of organic carbon in cropland mineral soils and the share of agricultural land with high-diversity landscape features, restoring drained peatlands under agricultural use. Of particular concern to farmers are the proposed targets with regard to restoring drained peatlands under agriculture use. The regulation sets a target to restore to satisfactory levels 30% by 2030, of which 7.5% will be rewetted, 50% by 2040, of which 25% will be rewetted, and increasing to 70% by 2050, of which 35% will be rewetted. The proposed regulation allows for Ireland to include areas of peat extraction sites to achieve these targets, as well as drained peatlands under land uses other than agriculture such as forestry, up to a maximum of 20% of the overall target.

Even taking these options into account, the regulation has the potential to remove significant areas of land from agricultural production. The national inventory report 2022 estimates there are 330,000 ha of drained grassland on organic peat soils. Under the proposals, the potential impact on drained agricultural land would be to restore 100,000 ha of this drained grassland by 2030, increasing to 231,000 ha by 2050. This represents 7% of the usable agriculture area under grassland. The lack of clarity regarding what is meant by "restore" or "satisfactory levels", as well as the potential impact on farmland and production, are a source of serious concern for farmers and rural communities, particularly in the midlands and west, where this soil type is more prevalent.

As regards comprehensive restoration targets for farmland habitats and Article 4, in addition to specific restoration measures for agricultural ecosystems, there are more comprehensive restoration targets encompassing habitats and ecosystems that have been designated as in bad condition under the reasoning of the habitats directive. The habitat types include wetlands, grassland, rivers, lakes, riparian habitats, forests and heath and scrub habitats. Under the proposals, Ireland would be legally required to put in place restoration measures to improve areas of habitat types that are not in good condition to good condition by 30% by 2030, 60% by 2040 and at least 90% by 2050.

The main concerns relate to a full impact assessment. The proposed regulations will have far-reaching consequences for Irish agriculture. A full impact assessment must be undertaken to quantify the area of farmland that will be affected. This is vital to ensure the proposed targets are realistic and fair and not detrimental to the continuation of farming in Ireland. It will provide an estimation of the economic impact and social burden of the restoration measures, as well as the cost of compliance.

New funding outside of CAP is needed. A lack of financing has been identified as a key failure in the EU meeting its 2020 biodiversity targets. The proposals lack clear and long-term financial support for nature restoration, with the majority of this expected to come from CAP funding. Restoration can only be achieved if it is not dependent on CAP budgets but, rather, is funded through a dedicated financial mechanism for biodiversity and restoration. Long-term restoration requires long-term resources, not short-term measures.

Farmer agreement is a non-negotiable prerequisite. The proposed measures relating to the nature restoration law will, in many cases, place substantial constraints on farming practices. This, in turn, will lead to a significant increase in management costs or a reduction in land productivity, or both. Therefore, it is vital that any measures undertaken are of a voluntary nature, with full prior agreement of farmers. These farmers must be fully compensated on the basis of full income forgone as a result of these measures. It is essential that an independent arbitration scheme is developed as part of the national restoration plan to determine the loss of value to the farm business caused by the measures, with an associated budget allocation.

Property rights must be respected. It is imperative that the property rights of farmers affected by the targets are not adversely affected. The designation of land has the potential to significantly impair the asset value of farmland. Therefore, it is essential that farmers are fully engaged from the outset and all measures are voluntary and only implemented in full agreement with the farmer.

Under the land use review, there is increasing demand on land from a range of economic and environmental objectives. The scale of land use change required to meet these demands is significant. Climate Action Plan 2023 sets out the following targets to achieve emissions reductions for the LULUCF sector.

They include increasing annual afforestation rates to 8,000 ha per annum from 2023 onwards, delivering an additional 28,000 ha of afforestation across the first carbon budget period; improving carbon sequestration of 450,000 ha of grasslands on mineral soils, reducing the management intensity of grasslands on 80,000 ha of drained organic soils by 2030 and rehabilitating 77,600 ha of peatlands. The sectoral emissions ceiling for the LULUCF sector has yet to be decided and was deferred to allow for the completion of the land use review.

Phase one of the land use review was published recently and provides the evidence base to determine the environmental, ecological and economic characteristics of land types in Ireland. The review highlights a lack of evidence on current land use and the impact of land use types on the environment and society. Key recommendations include the need to develop a soil monitoring network and the mapping capability for land use, soils and ecosystems, to fill these data gaps. Access to accurate data is required for farmers to make informed land use decisions.

On minimising disruption to the land market, land use change has the potential to have a significant socioeconomic impact on farmers and wider rural communities. The economic and social impact of land use change has not been fully addressed in this phase of the review and must be considered in the next phase.

The impact of changes in policies on the demand for land and the unintended consequences of these objectives is clearly visible from the changes introduced under the nitrates action programme, including nitrogen banding on dairy farms. This led to increased demand for land to ensure compliance, which led to a significant increase in land rental prices. This has had a disproportionate impact on the more financially vulnerable sectors, such as tillage, as they that cannot compete and justify paying the higher rental prices. This is contrary to the Government's policy under the climate action plan, which proposes to increase the area under tillage. It is important that as part of any land use review process, land use change targets do not add pressure and further disrupt the land market.

Phase two of the land use review, the next phase, must involve direct engagement with farmers to understand the decision-making processes of farmers on land use change and the influence of incentives and structural policies. The property rights of farmers must be respected and embedded within Ireland’s land use policy. Any agricultural land use change must be voluntary and fully respect a farmer’s right to make decisions on the current and future use of their land.

The IFA proposes that the next phase of the land review must examine the long-term socioeconomic impact of land use change on the agriculture sector and on rural communities, as well as the economic impacts of changes in land classification, specifically regarding the impact on income-earning potential and impairment of asset values. The review should also examine methods of calculating these impacts and potential funding streams to address the income loss or asset depreciation; the extent of land use change required to meet the existing targets and the impact on the Irish land market; the decision-making process of farmers on land use change and the influence of incentives and structural policies; the acceptance among landowners of different scenarios of land use; and the current restrictions and environmental constraints on forestry planting and the barriers to farmers planting. I thank the Chair.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

I thank Mr. O'Brien and will now go to Mr. Vincent Roddy for his opening statement.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

I thank the Chair and the committee for the invitation to address the committee. The committee has the statement that was sent in and to stay within five minutes or so, I will read a shortened version of that, if that is okay. I understand committee members also have, with that statement, proposals around the EU biodiversity strategy, which the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA developed.

In our submission we have focused on the EU nature restoration regulation, as it is a major concern for many our members who operate on peat soils. As is clear from the submission, there is a lot of detail to cover in this regulation, which is why we have not included details around the land use review. However, we are happy to discuss this with committee members today. When seeking solutions to the concerns outlined in the nature restoration regulation, it is vital that the science detailed is not just accurate but relevant to the land type and country. We must also consider the socioeconomic factors pertaining to local economies. The lands targeted under this regulation are actively farmed and delivering in terms of animal welfare, the environment and our local communities. When considering any environmental concerns we must recognise that these lands are delivering and are compliant under CAP regulations. Under these regulations, farmland must comply with good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC. In the new eco-scheme we also see additional requirements. Under the new agri-climate rural environment Scheme, ACRES, farmers will see these lands being scored under a habitat scorecard. In relation to these habitat scorecards, it is also worth noting that under a number of European Innovation Partnerships, EIPs, and the previous agri-environmental scheme, namely, the results-based environment-agri pilot project, REAP, similar habitat scorecards were positive on biodiversity outcomes. Continuing on the subject of CAP regulation, the new suckler herd support scheme, like its predecessor, has strong elements relating to the delivery of improved environmental outcomes, most notably the carbon navigator. On our hills, we have commonage management plans with specific requirements concerning minimum and maximum stocking rates. Beyond CAP is the Bord Bia scheme, Origin Green, which drives sustainable food production. There are also EU quality schemes that have sustainability as their hallmark, such as Connemara hill lamb. Everything outlined so far is positive in terms of food production and land use. However, if we go down the road proposed under the nature restoration regulation, we will undermine the quality and sustainability of food produced from these lands because we will be saying the land itself is the problem. This will create enormous reputational damage to the food we produce and will risk all of this on science that we believe is questionable.

The nature restoration regulation is a progression of the EU biodiversity strategy, and will provide the legal framework for its implementation. The regulation sets out a clear plan with specific timelines and restoration targets. In the context of the EU biodiversity strategy, this proposes to double the area of land designated, and the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association's position in this regard is clear. We will not accept any further designations to our lands. This view has been formed on the back of current land designations, both special areas of conservation, SACs, and special protection areas, SPAs, which were implemented without proper consultation and which have undermined farmer income. They have also failed in their intention to deliver improved biodiversity. This failure is the result of farmers and landowners being sidelined and not supported through this process. Unfortunately, the process followed in the nature restoration regulation is more of the same. There is scant reference to the landowners with no ring-fenced budget or recognition of their property rights.

The regulation covers a total of 23 articles and 78 recitals. While the recitals provide valuable insight as to how the proposal will be implemented, they are not legally enforceable. For this reason we will focus primarily on the 23 articles, specifically Articles 3, 4, 9 and 16. Article 3 covers definitions, of which 15 are detailed. Of particular interest is Article 3(3), which defines the meaning of restoration as "the process of actively or passively assisting the recovery of an ecosystem towards or to good condition". While the word, "actively" is quite clear,"passively" is non-interference. This is the model favoured for the delivery of stricter protected designation as outlined in the EU biodiversity strategy. It is also important to recognise that this designation type is to be targeted at carbon rich soils, such as peatlands, and will need to cover at least 10% of the EU land base. However, it could be higher, and we believe this is effectively rewilding by another name. Article 4(2) states "Member States shall put in place the restoration measures that are necessary to re-establish the habitat types listed in Annex I in areas not covered by those habitat types." In public discussion of this regulation, most of the focus has been on drained peatlands, as detailed in Article 9. However, our hills and upland areas feature strongly in these restoration targets, as detailed in Annex 1 to the birds and habitats directive that covers both wet and dry heathlands and blanket bogs, which are dominant on our hills.

In an Irish context, we maintain that the areas described in Articles 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) are agricultural areas or permanent grassland and they are agricultural ecosystems. If we ever go down this road, they should only be dealt with under Article 9.

Due to the possible rewetting of drained peatlands, Article 9 has been the subject of the majority of discussion around the regulation. This proposal is very concerning. Similar to Article 4, there is the prospect of a law being developed with which it is not possible to comply. If members wish, we can discuss this presently. It is important to recognise that when defining this proposal under Article 9(1), it is specified that it is " in addition to the areas that are subject to restoration measures under Article 4(1), (2) and (3)". This means that while these areas, that is, drained peatlands, are recognised as an agricultural area that could still support agriculture activity, as defined under Recital 55, the areas under Article 4, that is, hill lands, are viewed as existing habitats. We in the INHFA are of the view that all lands are agricultural areas and should only be viewed in this context. If they are ever accepted as non-agricultural areas, they will not be in a position to avail of future baseline payments under the Common Agricultural Policy.

On the objective of restoring these peatlands through rewetting, we have major reservations with regard to the science cited, which has been acknowledged to be utterly lacking. The only thing the scientists will stand over is that they are not sure whether rewetting will make emissions worse or better than they currently are.

Article 16 covers access to justice. It is quite shocking that there is no direct reference to the property owners. While members of the public can challenge the plan or any failure to act on details of the plan by a competent authority, which could be the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, they must, in order to do so, have a sufficient interest or maintain an impairment of right. It is very concerning that while it is specified that "Member States shall determine what constitutes a sufficient interest and impairment of a right", there is a free pass for "any non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law". They "shall be deemed to have rights capable of being impaired and their interests shall be deemed sufficient." There is a major concern that this could be abused by environmental NGOs. We are not saying it will happen but it could, and that would be to the detriment of landowners.

We look forward to members' questions.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Roddy. The next speaker is Ms O'Neill.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to attend today's session of the committee to consider the recent report as part of the national land use review and the proposals for rewetting of agricultural soils under the draft EU nature restoration law. I am the climate campaign co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth and the co-ordinator of the Stop Climate Chaos coalition. The latter is a coalition to enable environment, development and faith-based youth and social justice organisations to work together to ensure Ireland does its fair share to tackle the causes and consequences of climate change.

The most recent summary from the IPCC of its sixth assessment report highlighted yet again that greenhouse gas emissions have an unequivocal impact on global temperature and are driven by unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use changes. The IPCC's Summary for Policymakers highlighted that in most global modelled pathways, land-use change, forestry, via reforestation and reduced deforestation, and the energy supply sector reach net zero CO2 emissions earlier than do the building, industry and transport sectors. In other words, if we are to have any chance of remaining below an increase of 1.5°C or even 2°C, a transformation in how land is managed for food, fibre and timber production, as well as for nature, will be required. The science is clear that agriculture, forestry and other land-use options provide many adaptation and mitigation benefits that can be upscaled in the near term if the political will is there to implement these changes rapidly.

We welcome the publication of the land use synthesis report by Haughey et al. in recent weeks, which injects a much-needed sense of urgency into national climate policy discussions. The agriculture, forestry and other land use, AFOLU, sector as a whole is a significant net emitter, while also being the only significant source of potential sinks and carbon removals. The report makes clear that major changes in our approach to managing land will be required to achieve climate neutrality, or net zero emissions, before 2050. Under all of the scenarios modelled by the researchers, net zero is only achievable with significantly higher annual rates of afforestation, agricultural efficiencies, rewetting of organic soils and degraded peatlands and reduced livestock numbers, in tandem with one another.

If, in addition to achieving climate neutrality, additional land is to be allocated for nature, bioenergy or cropland, the scenarios in the report show that the policy interventions become even more challenging. We do not underestimate the difficulty in getting agreement for these changes. Any one of these strands - increasing forestry, rewetting soils and peatlands and reducing livestock numbers - would be contentious but to get to net zero we will need to do all of them.

Unfortunately, the marketing campaigns of some agrifood businesses, backed in many instances by the Government and State bodies, have given the impression over many years that everything we do on the land is already sustainable. In fact, our land, our waters, our forests and nature are all in deep trouble. Our greenhouse gas emissions have not declined appreciably since 1990 and have risen again in recent years. Biodiversity loss has accelerated and water quality is in serious decline, due in large measure to agricultural pressures. Change will be all the more difficult because an effective environmental and climate policy has been trumped, in the agricultural sector at least, by the lure of export markets. As it was Government policy that led to the expansion of the dairy sector in Ireland since 2011, farmers cannot and must not be blamed for the resulting lock-in effects and the resistance to new approaches.

We note with alarm that misrepresentations of the potential for alternative greenhouse gas metrics as well as overestimates of the sequestration potential of certain agricultural practices are still quite common in public and media discourse. It has become common in some quarters to equate evidence-based climate and biodiversity action with an ideological attack on traditional rural livelihoods. In our opinion, political leadership from the Department of agriculture and leading farming organisations has been absent. Our experience on the ground is that farmers care deeply about nature conservation and climate action but national policies and CAP rules have been incentivising expansion and intensification. We believe that a new national stakeholder dialogue, aimed at achieving climate neutrality in the land-use sectors and which is inclusive and participatory, would go a long way to reframing the debate about land use in a frank, constructive and evidence-based manner

The recently amended climate Act establishes a process for the adoption of five-year carbon budgets and emissions ceilings to be adopted by the Government which set the “maximum amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are permitted in different sectors of the economy”. Despite having one of the most ambitious and prescriptive climate laws in Europe, the Government has still left blank pages in the emissions ceilings, with no target set for LULUCF and unallocated savings of 5.25 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in annual savings between 2026 and 2030. This effectively means the Government is flying blind in respect to pathways to achieving climate neutrality by 2050 for the AFOLU sectors overall. We urge the committee to write to the relevant Ministers to demand that the LULUCF target be agreed as soon as possible to give clarity and certainty to all relevant stakeholders and that the target be set with a view to stabilising and reversing carbon losses from organic soils, hedgerow removal and degraded wetlands as rapidly as possible.

Ireland has agreed to achieve economy-wide climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest. However, this goal applies to the whole economy, not the AFOLU sector specifically. Given the potential of agricultural land management, forestry and peatlands to sequester carbon, the sector could achieve net negative emissions well before 2050, thus supporting the more technically challenging target of net zero for other sectors. Unfortunately, we are not on track. We still do not have a long-term climate strategy so it is imperative the Department of climate action finalise such a strategy as quickly as possible to give policy certainty and a clear trajectory of policy interventions that are aligned with achieving climate neutrality for the AFOLU sector well before 2050.

I will add a couple of points about carbon removals and storage in land and soils and carbon farming. Sequestration, by definition, must be additional to what would happen without intervention. The land use review report shows that there is still a great deal of uncertainty and variation in soil organic carbon data across the country. Relatively common changes in land use from grassland to cropland and back again make data collection difficult and often unreliable.

It is not enough to measure the soil organic carbon and claim "credits" in respect of what is already there. Maintaining or increasing "stocks" of fixed stores of carbon, rather than "flows", is what counts as mitigation, which must be "additional" under the IPCC and the Kyoto Protocol accounting rules. Removals, however, must also be permanent, which is very difficult to ensure in the context of agricultural soils. It is easier to do this with forestry, but there are some difficulties there as well. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence on the condition and extent of hedgerows at present to ascertain their current or potential role in removals overall. The BRIAR report by the EPA, which has a number of reports looking into hedgerow carbon stocks, estimated a net removal rate of between 0.16% and 0.3% per annum, suggesting that hundreds of kilometres of hedgerow have been removed each year, often without the required permissions.

The European Commission has recently published proposals on certifying carbon removals but this proposal, in our view, has numerous shortcomings. To be considered a true carbon removal, a verifiable process must be proven to remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and store it permanently for at least two centuries. In contrast, carbon farming is an extremely broad and volatile concept covering different types of nature-based activities that can be very beneficial to nature, but with very different estimated durations of carbon storage grouped together. That said, all these approaches lead to carbon being stored temporarily in carbon sinks that are vulnerable to human and natural disturbances. We urge policymakers to think beyond market-based solutions and instead focus on a viable alternative, which is activity-based finance. The EU, its member states and the private sector can financially support farmers and foresters to adopt and maintain good practices for the environment and the climate without relying on removals that are in fact only temporary and without relying exclusively on a market signal.

I will conclude with a number of recommendations. The publication of this synthesis report published by the EPA is just the beginning of what should be a national evidence-based conversation about how land use can achieve climate neutrality. We suggest further sessions of this committee on further chapters of the land use review, LUR, with the relevant experts and authors. That would be helpful in drawing out key learnings from the report and the underlying science and in teasing out the relevant policy options and trade-offs. The underlying science and practice of rewetting and restoration of degraded peatlands is relatively new and evolving. The committee should consider investigating those practices that involve raising the water table while maintaining agricultural activity to defuse fear and get the facts straight about what is possible, feasible and beneficial in catchment-specific contexts. The committee could investigate and explore the synergies with the nature restoration law to get a picture of the ecological benefits of rewetting. Above all, the committee could seek assurances from the three lead Departments, namely the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, that they are jointly committed to achieving the goal of climate neutrality, that they support the nature restoration law and its proposed targets and that they will work together to deliver the commitments in the programme for Government and the climate action plan. Above all, we urgently need to get on with the job of restoring degraded peatlands, rewetting organic agricultural soils and preventing the further loss of hedgerows, which are the fastest and most reliable ways to prevent emissions and carbon losses.

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

Thank you, Ms O'Neill, for your opening statement. I invite Members to indicate to ask questions. I ask them to be brief in their questions because we have quite a few guests in the room and joining us online and I think we will need all the time we have to get through all the topics. There was an awful lot in our guests' opening statements, so I ask for the co-operation of Members in order that we are fair to one another and to our guests.

I will ask just a quick question. Ms O'Neill, in your statement you talked about "insufficient evidence on the condition and extent of hedgerows", and I note that Mr. Roddy talked about the science being utterly lacking. These are two different things, but I think there is a risk that they can be conflated. I will give an opportunity to both of you and anyone else who wants to come in on that question of the science being lacking or resolved or what the gaps are there.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I am not an environmental scientist or an ecological expert, but my understanding is that the studies the EPA has published on the health and extent of hedgerows involves the use of remote technologies, including LiDAR techniques, to measure things using satellite and other types of imagery, so there is no need to physically measure, kilometre by kilometre, the extent and health of the hedgerows. The use of those technologies is evolving all the time. There is a good evidence base and good scientific techniques to assess the health and extent of hedgerows. Local authorities conduct surveys annually, I think. There is insufficient evidence to make certain kinds of claims, but this does not mean there is not a detailed scientific understanding of and knowledge base concerning the importance of hedgerows.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

It is important to clear that up. Would Mr. Roddy like to come in on this point?

Mr. Vincent Roddy

I will bring in our policy adviser, Mr. Condon, on this point, but when I was talking about the science being utterly lacking I was referring specifically to the rewetting of drained peatlands.

Mr. Joe Condon

The evidence I am giving is not my opinion but is based on research I have looked into and this is evidence given at another Oireachtas committee by a person involved in rewetting. It was stated that emissions following the rewetting of former agricultural land can be very high in respect of methane. That comes from 2007 but a more recent study has been done in Ireland itself and the results state, "the climate cooling effect ... at our study site is projected to plateau within a few decades of rewetting ... and the climate warming impact of sustained CH4 emissions is likely to predominate for the next two centuries". This project was funded by Bord na Móna and the EPA.

At present, a farmer would not be an intentional polluter. If he were to rewet his land, then he would be an intentional polluter. If we look at Article 16, there would be a catch-22 situation in this scenario. If he does not obey the law, he will be in an illegal situation while if he obeys the law, he will be a polluter and also in an illegal situation. This is the anomaly that has developed in this regard from this science. We are looking at this from the reputational value of the products we are producing on our land. There is another scenario where we have an Irish grass-fed standard, which crosses into the North of Ireland. We will have a country that is not going to be impacted by the nature restoration law but this product is directly linked to land on both sides of that Border. Reputational issues could arise in this regard.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

To go back to the rewetting, did I hear correctly when Mr. Condon said that he believed the rewetting would make the land more polluting?

Mr. Joe Condon

Yes, this comes from the study carried out in 2022.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

Would Dr. McGoff like to comment?

Dr. Elaine McGoff

Yes. On that point, I am not a climate scientist but my understanding is that while it might lead to a short-term flux in methane, when we look at the situation over the longer term, it is a carbon sink. In terms of the science being established, it is well known to have multiple benefits. Wetland rewetting benefits biodiversity, water quality and, in the long term, carbon sequestration. The science on this is clear, but I am not familiar with the report mentioned.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

We should look at it. It is the first I have heard of it. Dr. McGoff's explanation that there might be a very short-term-----

Mr. Joe Condon

This evidence indicates that it can be long term in these scenarios. This evidence I am talking about here is in the land use review. It is cited at the back of it.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

We will have a look at that. To our guests joining us online, I ask them to use the raise-hand function if they wish to come in at any stage. I call Mr. Roddy.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

To add to the point made, Teagasc is undertaking scientific research around this issue. Early indications are suggesting exactly what Mr. Condon has outlined and that methane will create a bigger problem than the CO2 emissions.

On the point about the status of the science, on the contrary to there being confusion around the impact of drained peatlands, I would say that the emerging science is showing that the impact is worse than had been predicted. I referenced the research that came out this year showing that emissions for afforested peatlands were three times higher than previously estimated. Many Irish researchers, such as Dr. David Wilson and Dr. Florence Renou-Wilson, have said for a long time that the emissions from domestic turf cutting were massively underestimated. If anything, when it comes to the status of the science, what is emerging shows that we significantly underestimated the scale of the challenge in the past. That has been reflected recently in the EPA since this report and in the Climate Change Advisory Council's carbon budgets report. It is countering what the farming groups would say but my impression is that the situation is actually much worse and there is a consensus that peatland restoration is identified as an excellent policy mechanism to reduce emissions in the land use section, to counter biodiversity loss and to reduce water pollution.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

Mr. Kelly is saying that the science is clearer than ever.

It tells us that the situation is worse than we previously understood.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I thank all the witnesses for their presentations. It is really important to bring everyone into one room to have these discussions. It is clear that there is still a long way to travel to reach agreement. However, there are areas where there is agreement. I think everyone is in agreement that rural and farming communities need to be supported to make the changes and that those will require financial supports. We also agree that there should be consultation. Agricultural communities and the scientific community need to be involved in the discussions on engagement. How much consultation has there been to date with the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications or Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine on this issue? I would like to get a sense of what has happened and what the witnesses would like to see happen. It is really important that we get this right and that it is done on a collaborative basis as much as possible.

I understand that the economic impact of this is a major concern to the agriculture sector. The social and economic impact of these changes was referenced. The evidence is clear; environmentally we are in a much worse place than we were even 20 years ago from a biodiversity loss and climate perspective. Dr. McGoff mentioned that only 20 of our waterways are actually pristine versus 500 just 20 years ago. We are really on the wrong path environmentally. When planning for the future is the social and economic impact of not doing anything taken into account? We will see changes in things like flooding, weather patterns and drought patterns. Are those taken into consideration? My two questions are on consultation and the impact of not doing anything.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

It is consultation on both the NRL and the land-use review with Department of Environment, Climate and Communications.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

The pathways are very similar for both.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

I thank the Deputy for the question. I will answer one of the questions and then pass over to my colleague, Mr. Buckley. On our interaction with the Department, we have had meetings with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and we have had meetings with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Ultimately the National Parks and Wildlife Service under the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage will be implementing the nature restoration as it as it is. There have been good interactions during this process of gathering information. The problem we have is that if this is signed into law in Europe, the direction of travel would be that we would have agreed to something without having had the impact assessment done. We will not know. Officials from the Department have met us, but they are gathering information just like we are trying to gather information. More needs to be done for this to be proven once and for all because the knowledge deficit at the moment is so great.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

When Mr. O'Brien talks about the impact assessment, does he expect that will feed into the financial supports required from that perspective? Is the primary reason for considering the economic impact so that the IFA can go to the Department or to the deciding bodies and say, "This is how much it's going to cost us; now can you support us to that level?"

Mr. Paul O'Brien

I will pass over to Mr. Buckley.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

That is a key part of it. There is a dual economic impact. There is the income earning capacity from the land but what is often overlooked is the impact on asset values. There are scenarios where land is designated without the consent of the farmer. The farmer is simply informed that their land is designated and it will devalue the value of that asset by up to 90% overnight. I previously worked in the financial industry.

I know farmers who inherited land. Land is valued for inheritance at €X. If it is then designated it loses 90% of that value. As well as this being a massive asset loss, if the farmer then wants to borrow funding, the value of that security has declined. There are dual parts to this. There is the income earning and the asset value. If we rezoned a housing estate in a town and reduced the asset values by 80% or 90%, there would be uproar. This is part of it.

On the economic side, we can look back over the years at the funding that has gone into schemes. For example, the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, in the mid-2000s had 70,000 farmers and a fund of €1.9 billion. If we fast forward, since 2022 we have had the agri-climate rural environment scheme, which is much lauded by the Government and, in fairness, it is an improvement on the previous scheme. ACRES has an ambition for only 50,000 farmers, which is 20,000 fewer than REPS 16 years ago, and its funding in real terms was 19% lower. If we look at CAP funding, we see it is constantly reducing, even in nominal terms, but also very much in real terms. Irish CAP Pillar 1 funding has reduced by well over 20% in the past 15 years in real terms.

One of the key problems I see is when we look at how this will be funded, and Deputy Whitmore's point was very well made, and we establish the gap in terms of income and asset value, we cannot look to the CAP to fund it. The CAP is already declining and it has existing purposes. There are two principles. The first is that it has to have the consent of farmers, and it has been on a voluntary basis in terms of designation and measures. The second is that it also needs to be properly funded. There should not be a loaves and fishes approach, which is what has been happening with the CAP in particular. The CAP was repurposed for eco-schemes and 25% was set aside. That was 25% of existing funding. Some people looked at it and said it was new. It was not. It was recycled funding. This is a key part of it. With regard to its size, we have to look at how we will fund it.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Ultimately, if the funding package is right, Mr. Buckley would support the nature restoration law.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

I am not saying that for one second. What I am saying is that if we are looking at designation and the impact on farmers, we cannot have a situation where something is being imposed. As I have said, it has to be with the consent of farmers. If we were to introduce overnight a nature restoration law and set targets that will inevitably lead to an imposition on farmers without their consent, it would be a very retrograde step. It is the one way to guarantee there will not be farmer buy-in, which is essential to any progression.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

Deputy Whitmore also asked about the impact of not doing this. Was that question also directed at the farming organisations?

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Yes, primarily so. We are projecting but land value, asset value and earning potential may change. We imagine there will be changes in some areas and as climate change continues to occur, the value of what might be valuable land now could change. Is this impact also being taken into account, not only with respect to an individual piece of land but also to communities? This could be with regard to flooding or whatever issue may occur on a localised basis.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

I thank Deputy Whitmore. She has asked some very good questions. I know Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Buckley have covered some of them quite well and I will carry on from there. When we look at the nature restoration law the first problem is that we have to look back at what happened with the Natura 2000 network of designations that was implemented initially in the mid-1990s and added to since. It has been a very bad experience for most landowners.

Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Buckley mentioned the devaluation of land. If you are looking at land currently, land that would previously get €3,000 to €4,000 per acre for forestry is not even getting €1,000 per acre. I know of one case of a farmer who has been offered €467 per acre by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage for designated land. Land that is not designated will get multiples of that, and depending on where the land is, you get from €10,000 to €20,000 per acre for land in other parts of the country. That is the major problem. Then we have to look at how the designations were applied. You effectively had a failure by the State in applying those designations. We had a policy of preservation, not conservation, and that was pretty well illustrated through these 38 activities requiring consent that landowners had to comply with. Those activities will effectively stall landowners from doing any farming. They were previously able to farm with the consent of the State. That has been a major problem and what has happened during that process is that we have seen - it is not us saying this but the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS - that those designations have stagnated, and in some cases, regressed. We must remember that this is land that was worth designating in the first place so we have to look at that.

This is about trust and farmers do not trust politicians. I mean no disrespect to members but farmers do not trust the Government when it says it will support them in a just transition. They do not trust it because the reality is that this is not what has happened. When we talk about-----

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

I am going to push the debate on because a lot of members are looking to come in.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

That is fair enough. I want to make one point on the Natura 2000 designated network across Europe. A fitness check was done on EU nature legislation in 2017 and an estimation was done on what that was worth to the European Union in public good and so on. That worked out at between €200 billion and €300 billion per year to the European public. That would work out at between €2 billion and €3 billion per year in Ireland because we have 1%. If that is broken down on the amount of land, it would work out at about €3,000 per hectare. At best, under the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, farmers got €242 per hectare in recognition of the work they were supposed to do. We have seen that gradually slide and under the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, it was reduced to €150 in 2007 and it is now coming up. Perhaps Mr. McDonnell wants to make a point on that.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

I ask him to be brief as I want to move on.

Mr. Micheál McDonnell

I refer to the social impact of not doing anything. That is not just down to the farmer who owns the land; the social impact relates to everybody, including legislators. We throw the book at the farmer who owns the land. Back in 1998, for example, 95% of my land was designated and we were promised a great package after five years but that was totally eroded. Now we are allowing the designation but we have no income from it. It is important, therefore, that the task is broadened more and that by implementing one system we do not have a negative effect on some other system. We are talking about methane and the whole idea of carbon sequestration. I have spoken to ecologists in different EIPs, as previous speakers have mentioned, and ecologists and their like have said that we cannot just be totally focused on carbon. If we are totally focused on carbon and rewetting, will we be entering the area of monoculture and invasive species? We have seen what has happened with the rhododendron, for example, so we have huge issues down the line. We need to have a broad view of this and we cannot just have a high-level approach that says we need to start rewetting and this will save everything. We have to be broader than that and we have to have stakeholder engagement, which is vital.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

On the nature restoration law, it will be broader and it is not totally focused on carbon. It is important to state that. I will go to Mr. Kelly and then we will move on because other members are looking to come in.

Mr. Fintan Kelly

I refer to Deputy Whitmore's first question on engagement. Speaking on behalf of the environmental pillar, there has been engagement with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage on the nature restoration law. We sought meetings on those matters and we clearly communicated our concerns on Ireland's position. We stated that at an EU level the nature restoration law was overly onerous.

We were very clear in communicating that the nature restoration law targets are less ambitious than our existing national commitments, and what has been recommended by organisations like the EPA and the Climate Change Advisory Council. There has been no engagement with the relevant Departments on the Government's position. While there has been discussion there still is no clarity on exactly what Ireland's position is on various aspects of the nature restoration law in ongoing negotiations.

Speaking to the land use review, phase 1 has taken place and culminated with the publication of various reports. There was a public consultation that called for evidence but there was no engagement around the gathering of that evidence or the assessment of what the evidence might mean or the implications of the synthesis report. My understanding is that stakeholder engagement will happen during phase 2 but so far there is no clarity on exactly what that will involve. So we have called on relevant Ministers to make sure that farmers, environmentalists and all relevant stakeholders are engaged with.

On economic assessments, the Commission did provide a broad economic assessment to accompany the proposal of the nature restoration law. The assessment clearly identified that Ireland would benefit at a national level from improving ecosystem services provided by things like peatlands, carbon sequestration, water regulation, etc. The assessment was not clear about the fact that Ireland has in the past failed to reward landowners and farm owners for the public goods that they provide, which is what the farming representative organisations have spoken to. Therefore, I agree with those organisations declaring that we cannot repeat the mistakes made in the past around designation and the failure to provide farmers with the right schemes and level of payments. I agree with the earlier comments that farmers need to be incentivised to carry out these measures. They need to be fundamentally involved in the design and implementation of these measures at all stages. Yes, I fully agree that the people who provide the public goods that generate benefits that accrue to society must be rewarded.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

The most important word here is trust.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Diametrically different perspectives have been presented and there is a danger that we pass like ships in the night with each understanding their own position. The reality is we now face a need to make urgent change so the issue is how can we make progress. I hear, from both sides, the ideal solution. On one side, farmers want 100% compensation for the loss in land value and 100% compensation for the income loss. I can understand why such a case can be made. I also understand that the data gaps make it really difficult to impose a binding categorisation on lands because you do not know the potential impact that will be imposed with data uncertainty. On the other side, I hear the environmental groups spurning market measures, which recognises the position in which farmers find themselves whereby they depend on an income from agriculture and if they do not have a compensating income from environmental management then the future of their family farm is under real pressure.

We know early movement will be rewarded but if farmers dig in their heels and say not an inch then long-term farming will lose out. So there will not be a future if we do not change yet deliver both environmental services and quality food. We have to get to a different place from the one we are at. Can both sides give an idea of how we can move forward now even though there is data uncertainty? We heard people did not know whether it was 10 tonnes or 1 tonne per hectare in different situations, which is a massive difference.

That is the basic question on which I would like to hear from the witnesses. We are not in a perfect world. We cannot achieve the perfect solution people would like. What do we now start to do? That would be helpful for the committee to understand.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

I am sorry; I think I missed Ms O'Neill out the last time.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I hear the Deputy's frustration and I understand the desire to reconcile these different perspectives. It is important to stress that the report is extremely valuable and it is worth diving into the detail. The committee could usefully explore each chapter separately and dive into it to try to get answers to a lot of these questions. There is a great deal of complexity, which is not the same thing as data gaps. There are plenty of data; it is a question of how we interpret them and how they are used to inform policy decisions. One of the things I have picked up while reading the report is the need for a very catchment-specific approach for the different types of water bodies and soils and the different impacts as a result when you plant trees and engage in land use activity. We have to get into a detailed mapping exercise rather than engage in generalisations. That is on all of us.

To go back to the doubt the Deputy expressed, the issue with carbon markets is that we are trying to convince ourselves that we can offset the CO2 emissions, which are essentially permanent over human timescales, with land use removals. Unfortunately, while the practices themselves involve very good activities that are beneficial to nature in lots of ways, they do not necessarily permanently store the carbon or reliably store it and do not do it in a way that can be measured in the sense needed in order to justify creating a carbon credit. That is not to rule out other types of market instruments, however. For example, one of the things we should be looking at is the ending of all fossil fuel subsidies and the ending of all environmentally damaging subsidies, some of which are still included in the CAP scheme. There is lots we can do to reform our existing financing of climate action and environmental action without having to resort to measures like carbon farming, which are dubious and impermanent.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I am not hearing many practical things we are going to do next week or next year.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I appreciate that. That is not my area of expertise. I think it would be valuable for the committee to get the authors of the report in as they are experts in agro-ecology.

Mr. Fintan Kelly

Along with our submission we submitted a report we wrote on Article 9.4 of the nature restoration law. There are quite detailed recommendations on what we would like to see from the Irish Government, Irish MEPs and the Commission with regard to the final nature restoration law. At the moment all the signals we have received indicate that Ireland is trying to water down the ambition of the peatland-----

Deputy Richard Bruton

Sorry, my question does not really relate to how we set a higher target. It is about how we start to make progress on practical measures where we can see improvement so we can build confidence that this can be done among the farming community and people who feel a sense of urgency. Setting different targets is not the question I am asking.

Mr. Fintan Kelly

I take that point but the science is clear that we need to deliver rewetting across all types of peatlands and organic soils. That includes forestry, industrial peat extraction, domestic peat extraction and farmland. My point on the nature restoration law is that, if the EU has lower targets than what the science is telling us we need at a national level, that weakens our hand in terms of trying to leverage EU support for those necessary actions. That is why we feel we need to lobby for a stronger nature restoration law. Currently, the nature restoration law does not have any mandatory targets for industrial extraction sites or afforested peatlands. That ties in with what the Government should be doing immediately. It is clear that we need urgent action on agricultural soils but to get it right there would need to be engagement and schemes that are designed appropriately. That will inevitably result in delays. The most urgent action the Government can take is to reform the legal mandates of Coillte and Bord na Móna to ensure their purely economic mandates are reformed to include tackling biodiversity loss and climate change.

They should immediately start to rewet the 16% of publicly forested lands on peatlands. Currently, Coillte has no mandatory targets for forest-to-bog restoration. That needs to be addressed.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

The Deputy mentioned building confidence. From a farmer's point of view, the ambition of the farmer has always been higher than the ambition of the State. Going back to the previous REPS, which has been spoken about, there were 70,000 farmers in REPS in the 2000s. Taking a look at where we are today, 30,000 farmers were originally pencilled in for ACRES but 46,000 farmers applied. More farmers would have applied if they were given encouragement and told they would get through the system. It has always been a case of if the design is there and if the ambition is to provide an opportunity for farmers to engage in an environmental scheme, they will go on it. History has shown that 70,000 farmers in the past did that.

Building confidence is going to be difficult because at the moment, the only way the nature restoration law looks likely to be implemented is with the main financing tool from that being the Common Agricultural Policy. That only brings us to 2027. If we are asking farmers to go on this scheme, to rewet and reinstate land and do all these other things, that would go up to 2050. There would need to be considerably longer-----

Deputy Richard Bruton

My understanding is that there are some examples in Ireland where there are tentative moves towards carbon rewards or environmental rewards but they are on a small scale. Is it just a question of scaling that? Does Mr. O'Brien have confidence in those sorts of measures? He is saying the scheme must be voluntary and that there must be 100% compensation. That sounds like a policy for no change, in a sense. We are in a climate emergency. No one doubts that. We need to find confidence-building measures and not just say it must be voluntary and 100%. Farmers need to give us something to work with here.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

How can we describe something to farmers if we are saying at the moment the only opportunity for them is Pillar II two money? That Pillar II money is not guaranteed past the present-----

Deputy Richard Bruton

Maybe Mr. O'Brien could describe that. If we wanted to pilot that sort of money, what would look it like? Would it look like the schemes we have?

Mr. Paul O'Brien

That will only take into account the day-to-day running of the farm but it will not take into account the the value loss of the asset. If something goes to designation, that dramatically reduces the value of that land. It is one thing to suggest to farmers, if a scheme is made available, that they can go into that scheme but there is a problem when it comes to the value of the land. We are here to try to provide solutions, to put the hand out and build bridges but the reality is that we need to go back to our members. If they want to go on this journey voluntarily to improve biodiversity and reduce carbon, they have to be given the financial tools to make sure their income is not destroyed as a result of that. That is a situation where it is up to the State to provide the necessary confidence to farmers so they know that if they choose voluntarily to go into a scheme their income foregone will be taken into account.

Mr. Micheál McDonnell

I thank Deputy Bruton for the question. He asked how we can bridge the gap so early movers will be rewarded. With the EIPs, we had a very successful model of finding data, taking results from them and bringing them forward into the mainstream. We now have eight co-operation teams within that sector that have been borne out as part of the new ACRES. Those are the areas in that regard. We also have the new ACRES, which is results-based.

When the farmer actually sees the results and the positives of that, he is going to build on his whole idea of, "What makes money for me?", and the farmer who is doing more actually benefits more. The whole idea of the increase in organic farmers is quite positive, and then there is what has been said about early movers being rewarded potentially in the next CAP but it might not be as good for some. Early movers being rewarded is great, but we need to keep rewarding them for being early movers. The positive thing we have to do here is the engagement with the stakeholder.

However, when we have those results-based schemes and those EIPs, it takes time for that data to come down, and then we reassess. If I have a problem with my car, I fix it and I go again. We cannot just throw the baby out with the bathwater and say "we have a huge climate change problem and everything has to be rewetted". We must take incremental steps - we measure, we assess, we go again. It is very important that we do that, and not have a carte blanche approach, saying that this all needs to be done. It is about incremental steps, and we have to build on that, but it is vital that we bring the actual farmers with us. We are positive toward building that initiative of making it better. In the new ACRES scheme, we have space for nature. Can that be increased? We are looking at the positives around that and there are initiatives that we can build on.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I thank the Cathaoirleach, and all the witnesses. It has been a useful discussion, and I am taking the point that has been made that we need not repeat the mistakes of the past. It has been useful to hear those areas of contention that need to be thrashed out and some agreement found on them in order to move on. The line of questioning so far has been on a specific theme from all of the members, and I am going to continue on it, if that is okay.

The representatives touched on stakeholder forums and the need for engagement. Can I ask what they think that looks like, and also if they can point to existing or previous experiences which have been positive or might be useful? I might start with Ms O'Neill.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I thank Deputy O'Rourke. Stop Climate Chaos is not formally part of the environmental pillar, which has a more formal opportunity from time to time to be engaged in policy-making and has been engaged in the past through the Food Vision 2030 discussions around agriculture and agrifood strategy. Unfortunately, and Mr. Kelly can maybe speak to it, the experience was very difficult and the representative withdrew.

Generally speaking, environmental groups are very much sidelined in any discussions around land use and agriculture policy. For example, AgClimatise committed to setting up a stakeholder group with non-governmental organisations, NGOs and scientists included, but that has not happened yet to the best of my knowledge. Various other sectoral strategy groups have been set up instead to look at the climate aspects of dairy and beef, for example. To be honest, the policy seemed to exclude science and NGOs as much as possible, which has led to a kind of siloing effect in the conversation. It is very difficult to get opportunities to actually engage with farming representatives and State bodies on matters of critical environmental and climate policy.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, there is an opportunity in phase 2 of the land use review to do this stakeholder engagement properly, and to do it at a community level, in rural communities, and through citizens' assemblies. We also have the recommendations coming soon from the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, which should feed into the work of this committee and other committees. It is about setting up not just one conversation, but many conversations at different scales which enable us to get into the detail.

The other thing is that I suspect we will need to be very patient with this; there is not going to be an 18-month conversation leading to an agreement. It is going to be an evolving conversation because it is not just about what we do for 2030. It is about what we do for 2050 and before that.

Mr. Fintan Kelly

We have been involved in a couple of different types of stakeholder forums and there is definitely a need for multi-stakeholder forums, ones which would have farming representatives and representatives from the environmental sector.

From my own experiences I feel that sometimes the forums are not independent enough. Often, stakeholder forums shadow an interdepartmental steering group, and ultimately, the end outputs are determined by the Department. Those outcomes are obviously influenced by the politics and the lobbying that happens behind the scenes.

An example I would give would be the curlew task force, which was independently chaired. I feel that the recommendations that came out of that probably went beyond what might have happened in a more traditional forum like the hen harrier threat response plan consultative committee, which had a similar remit but the outputs were quite different.

My suggestion would be that whether it is phase 2 of the land use review or a stakeholder forum looking specifically at the nature restoration law, there is need for a stakeholder forum involving farmers and environmentalists. Ideally, that would be independently chaired and facilitated or we could give our own feedback to the State, as opposed to commenting on a fait accompli from the State.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

I thank Mr. Kelly. Is Deputy O'Rourke's question for the farming organisations as well?

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

Yes, please.

Mr. Joe Condon

Members could consider what we are doing here today to be a sort of stakeholder engagement.

Mr. O'Brien wanted to round up.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

If we are to look at this, it is the EIPs we need to look at. I was with the farm peat EIP a couple of weeks ago. There were about 50 to 60 farmers across the midlands in places like Offaly, going into Roscommon, and about 20% of them have voluntarily allowed the blocking of their drains. Their problem, however, is that they have been given only reassurances that the EIP will continue until June. There needs to be a guarantee that some of these EIPs that will ultimately be designed for policy in the future are given enough time to be able to come back with the real results to see where we are going and its overall impact. The farmers told me at the time that they were not doing any carbon calculations whatsoever. It was just full water to raise the water levels in the peat. In order for this to work, we need to look at all the above. We have spoken about a lot of things here today - biodiversity, carbon, nature restoration - but it is a matter of a full EIP on a bigger scale than just 60 farmers, and for a longer period, to be able to design something that fundamentally will have major impacts socially and economically and in regions throughout the country.

I attend a lot of stakeholder meetings and a lot of the time it is academia talking to academia. To bring that down to a farmer level will be one of the big challenges of the State. Maybe it is a matter of a knowledge transfer in Teagasc or the involvement of the Agricultural Consultants Association, ACA, and people like that to talk to farmers at a kind of catchment level and to explain this to them. All the time, as a voluntary officer for the IFA, I explain to farmers. It should be the State explaining to farmers what it expects them to do.

I appeal to the committee. We have an opportunity here but the nature restoration law timelines in Europe are such that this will be designed in the next couple of months. The problem we will have then is that a target will be set and the reality is that it will then be up to us to try to achieve that target. We may need to look at this at a realistic stage, getting the farmer into action and saying farmers are prepared to do this if they are supported. The reality at the moment, however, is that there is very little evidence of the State providing supports for the farming community if they are to be expected to reduce dramatically their farming activity. A mechanism needs to be put in place to support them so they are allowed on this transition.

Senator Pauline O'Reilly

I thank all the witnesses for their opening statements.

There seems to be a little doubt cast on some of the science around rewetting. If the witnesses could be convinced of that science, would they then be prepared to say that it needs to happen, or is it the case that it is actually rewetting that they have an issue with, regardless of what the science says? I am just trying to understand that point. We all have farmers in our families and live in constituencies where there are many farmers. Well, I certainly do. Farmers want to make the moves in the right direction, I believe, and they need to be supported in doing that. However, there needs to be an acceptance of the science around this in order that we can move in that direction and build trust on each side. A question was asked about the place of the witnesses' organisations as farming organisations, and this is a question for the farming organisations. What will happen to farmers if we do not do some of this work? Mr. McDonnell seems to be suggesting that that is not really their job, as such, and that it is maybe for the Government to make that decision. If, however, his opening statement says that farmers will be the most impacted by the outcome of the NRL and by the land use review, is it not also the case that he could make the argument in his opening statement or to his organisation's members that farmers will actually also be the most impacted by doing nothing? We probably need to have both those conversations at the same time; I do not think we can ignore one over the other.

It is valid to say that farmers will be impacted but it is also valid to say that in doing nothing they will also be impacted.

Going back to the issue around EIPs that was mentioned, I will talk about the ACRES. When the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, was before the committee, we heard that the actual carbon reduction from the ACRES seems to be very small. We talk about the ACRES a lot, and as politicians we talk about its impact a lot, but a huge amount more will need to be done other than the ACRES. What I am hearing colleagues ask is what other suggestions the witnesses have. It is important that their involvement in this is part of the process. What more do they need, other than the ACRES, that they could get behind? What can we do around rewetting that would get the farming organisations on board?

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

I thank the Senator for the questions. As the conversation goes on, there are two things going on in parallel here, the carbon conversation and the nature and biodiversity conversation. They are related but very different. The nature restoration law deals with biodiversity and with addressing and improving the restoration status within it. Then there is the dual benefit of climate. That comes back to the ACRES. It is designed from a biodiviersity and nature-based perspective. It has the added benefit in respect of carbon, of course, because if we improve the health and well-being of our nature, that will have an improvement in respect of carbon as well. I just wanted to clarify that as the conversation goes on.

Farmers in schemes are looking at rewetting and going into it with the EIP. We are looking at the practicalities of it, measuring within Teagasc the carbon fluxes and what exactly is being sequestered. We are gathering those data. If carbon markets are a little more evolved, and if the market gives a value to that, we could see the potential there and could see that taking over. It is, however, very much an economic decision for the farmer. There will be those who will look at it and see the potential of it. We are lucky that Bord na Móna is doing work as well, and that can feed into the process. We are very much at those early stages. I do not think anybody is concerned about the impacts on other land. We are gathering those data so we are in that process. We are looking at this and we have to look at it as a phased approach.

As for restoration and what exactly it means, reduced intensity, the economic impact of that and the nature benefits and the carbon benefits of it have to be looked at. Mr. O'Brien made a very important point earlier about bringing the message back to the farmer. We have a programme on water called agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP. That is working collaboratively and locally. There was a comment earlier - I think Ms O'Neill made it - about being catchment-based. We are locally based. There will be locally based solutions, looking at programmes like ASSAP and putting them within nature and climate. There is potential there to work collaboratively with farmers to identify areas on the farm. It is very much a collaborative process.

I will pass on to Mr. Buckley.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

Just one thing struck me. The national retrofitting scheme is to be funded by €8 billion by 2030 for 500,000 houses. Going back to something Deputy Bruton said earlier, nobody is telling the householder, "You have to retrofit your house."

Senator Pauline O'Reilly

That was not really the question, though.

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Okay, fair point because I misunderstood that.

I just struggle with that. I am glad we got clarity that even if it is a law, the farmers can be supported. We have to remember the Rural Environment Protection Scheme, REPS 4, which has been mentioned a number of times here. Farmers are always wary about this. REPS 4 was pulled, because an bord snip nua made the decision to do so. I remember exactly what was said. They said that there had been an agri-environmental scheme in place for eight years at that stage so farmers by now should know how to farm in an agri-environmental manner. That was the basis for the decision. There was no recognition of the financial hardship it was going to create so that was a big problem.

I am very happy that people have got the issue of trust on what has happened previously with the designations because we really have to get to the core of that issue before any farmer will trust anyone to move on.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

On the question about the science I am a little bit alarmed to hear something quoted from a document without context. It is really important that we accept the science. The basic scientific methodology underpinning ecology and peatlands is well established internationally and here in Ireland. There are many documents at the end of the land use review referencing Irish studies. It is not correct to say that we do not know what is happening in Irish peatlands. What we can say is that until we start rewetting we cannot be sure of what the data will be. It is a circular argument to say that we do not have enough data to start because we cannot find out until we start. I am just a little bit concerned about that use of cherry picking quotations from other documents that may not be relevant to the Irish context and which give the impression that there is some kind of doubt or that there is an either-or science argument. There is not. It is completely clear in the synthesis review. It has been peer reviewed and references many other peer-reviewed scientific articles. I would urge the committee to bring in the authors of the report and other experts, as the committee sees fit, who can answer the scientific questions. It is still not clear to me that everybody in the room accepts the science as it is laid out in the report and that is somewhat concerning. I am sure the committee is not thinking along those lines.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

Is the witness referring to the AR6 report?

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I am talking about the land use review science which is peer reviewed.

Mr. Fintan Kelly

On Senator O'Reilly's point about acceptance for land use change, there is an aspect to this discussion that I do not see raised that often. The Government has very ambitious targets for afforestation. Currently under Irish law, afforestation implies a permanent land use change. If a farmer plants the land with sitka spruce, that land has to stay in forestry. From our scientific observations, the dominant model of forestry in Ireland is resulting in a lot of biodiversity loss, with significant impacts on high-nature-value farmland. There is also a lot of water pollution which impacts on high-status water bodies that support things like freshwater crab, mussels and salmon. Where afforestation has taken place on deep peats or organic soils, there are significant greenhouse gas emissions.

By contrast, rewetting of agricultural land could actually allow ongoing farming activities. It would enhance biodiversity in many cases and it would deliver positive climate benefits and may result in positive water quality benefits. There has been very little resistance to the draft forestry programme from many farming representatives. I do not want to undermine what the farmers have been saying. I totally hear it and I respect everything they have said and I concur that there is a lot of concern on the ground about rewetting. However, I would throw that perspective out there that in many ways, forestry is a more dramatic form of land use change, and there has not been the same level of resistance.

Mr. Micheál McDonnell

Farmers are very cognisant of the fact that the climate issue needs to be addressed.

They are also cognisant of the fact that it is their business and their property right. For that to be infringed upon without full consultation with the farmer by implementing a law is hard. The Senator will know what I mean.

Senator Pauline O'Reilly

Absolutely. We always hear that point clearly. I take that on board but it would be great to hear also the other side where the farming bodies are recognising and supporting the view that it will deeply impact farmers if we do not move forward some of these measures. My point is both sides have to be part of the conversation. I wonder whether Mr. McDonnell agrees with that.

Mr. Micheál McDonnell

Totally but if we are taking the farmer's business model and totally changing it, and we have all these ideas about carbon farming, water buffalo, cress and so on from which potentially there could be an income stream, that is a societal change. That will have a huge impact on the farmer's business model of what he has done. The farmer is the custodian. He is the guy who owns this land and without his consent, it will be hard to move forward. The farmer is proactive also and can engage with the right ideas.

We have to be cognisant. Trust is a huge thing here going forward.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

I have just one comment.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

No. I am going to move on.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

It is just about forestry, just to see it is responded to. That is all.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

There are four members looking to come in. For their own benefit, Senator Higgins is next, then Senator Dooley, then Senator Boylan and then Deputy Bríd Smith. Senator Higgins is joining us from her office.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I thank the Chair. I am glad that Ms O'Neill came back in relation to the science because I was quite concerned. In fact, I was reminded of when Exxon Mobil, a fuel company, took out an advertisement in 2000 in The New York Times titled, "Unsettled Science", in relation to climate, in terms of calling for us to delay action and that it was soon to act while there were doubts on the science, when we know there were not doubts on the science. It is quite dangerous to be trying to suggest that science is massageable or changing. We have new science coming through all the time but every piece of evolution in the science is pointing to a greater urgency to act. Any suggestion that there is not clarity around the need to act on the rewetting of peatlands is not accurate, does not match the science and is, in fact, dangerous, and I wanted to say that. I am glad that it was said, perhaps more eloquently, by Ms O'Neill. It is important.

It is not solely about science in Ireland, because Ireland does not exist in a bubble. It is also the science that is feeding into the discussions at European level on land use and it is also the science we know internationally. Internationally, peatlands are particular because they are both a danger and a benefit. Drained peatlands amount to 5% of greenhouse gas emissions internationally even though it is only 0.3% of the land, whereas wetted or natural peatlands are a store. One has something which is potentially a benefit and when it is degraded, is a really active danger in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

I will ask my questions in two sections: one around carbon and the other around biodiversity. On the question of carbon, the latest IPCC report, that includes all the science and the science review that goes into that, has highlighted the immediate benefits of conservation of peatlands and wetlands as compared to, for example, afforestation which takes a much longer time to deliver measurable results or, indeed, improvements to degraded soils. In terms of the time urgency, how important is it that we front-load action in relation to peatlands because they are something that deliver much earlier results in terms of our carbon reduction?

As for the questions on trust that were asked earlier, I wanted to contribute on them because to be honest, certain things damage trust when we have cherry-picking. An example I had was when we were being told about the 40,000 tonnes of horticultural peat imported into Ireland, whereas the 1.5 million tonnes that were exported in 18 months previously were not being mentioned. That is an example of previous selectivity that damages trust in engagement.

There is also a trust that the State needs and that we need as legislators, which is that if we develop packages of funding supports that they will work. Yet I heard some of the spokespeople saying there is no guarantee they would support it and in fact, that some may wish to complain if neighbours choose to rewet. I support the idea that we need to get a funding package right but in relation to the voluntarism piece, do we need laws if we want to be sure that we will meet our targets? To be clear, by 2025, there is only 20 megatonnes of space for carbon emissions. Even though the emission reductions have not been set, the space that is left within the carbon budget is 20 megatonnes.

Staying within that, it seems like peatland is something we need to be moving on early and law is needed on that. In terms of the retrofitting example, it is clear that landlords will be required to have energy rates eventually on their properties. That is something that is likely to come down the line. Every sector, for example, construction, will be regulated. That is our job as regulators. Separately, there is the piece around supporting the social and economic transition that accompanies that. To be clear, laws are not an arbitrary voluntary piece. They are something we need to bring in and then we look to ensuring the right financial packets.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

Okay.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Quickly, if I could go to Ms O'Neill, who mentioned forestry and land use, and the issue of the permanent storage of carbon, how important or how useful are peatlands in terms of a guaranteed early action on carbon storage and the potential for permanent storage in relation to that? I ask Dr. McGoff of SWAN what we can do in terms of river basin management and the prohibition of wetland drainage. Dr. McGoff mentioned both the Arterial Drainage Act and the river basin management scheme. It seems that we certainly should be stopping digging or stopping draining as a priority.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

Okay.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Lastly, I would be grateful if Mr. Kelly wanted to elaborate on the negotiations at the European level and how Ireland could play a more constructive role in relation to that. Mr. Kelly also mentioned that Coillte should have a more active role in relation to nature restoration and carbon storage. Mr. Kelly also commented on the biodiversity links and the choices to make sure we make the biodiversity-rich choices versus solely carbon choices.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

There are four or five questions. I ask our guests to be as brief as they can be because I want to give time for other members to come in and we only have 45 minutes left.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I thank Senator Higgins for the question. The land use review report explains the science extremely well and a layperson can follow it easily enough. It makes the distinction between avoided emissions and removals, which is another distinction we need to keep clear in our minds. It gets quite complex. With peatlands, you might be adding soil - if a rewetting project is successful, my understanding is at best a few millimetres per annum. However, avoiding emissions, by blocking drains, for example, and preventing the loss of carbon, can result in faster mitigation. In essence, we are being asked with the land use review to consider biodiversity, water quality and carbon altogether and we should not lose sight of the co-benefits of peatland rewetting for other areas.

On the economic aspect of it, it is worth recalling that today, in the Irish Independent, it is reported that Ireland could be facing fines of up to €8 billion for failure to meet the renewable energy targets, and this is an area where Ireland performs reasonably well. It is quite clear that every sector has obligations and that there are penalties that will apply if we fail to meet those targets.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

I thank Ms O'Neill for that. The second question was for Dr. McGoff.

Dr. Elaine McGoff

On land drainage, SWAN has called for an immediate prohibition on wetland drainage in the draft river basin management plan. That was not provided for. The reason we are looking for this is twofold. There is both authorised and unauthorised wetland drainage. I will deal first with land drainage by the OPW under the arterial drainage scheme.

As I said there are 11,500 km of waterways which are drained by the OPW. The Act is from 1945 and represents a previous era where they relied on a clause that called for the proper repair and effective condition of these drained wetlands. In essence, the OPW is saying that its hands are tied and it is statutorily obliged to maintain these waterways and keep dredging. However, it is questionable how that fits with EU law in terms of the water framework directive and the habitats directive. This is why SWAN is calling for a review of the Arterial Drainage Act 1945. It needs to be modernised and brought into line with EU law. This underlines the fact that planning legislation is failing to provide for water quality. Arterial drainage is going through all of the hoops but it is still incredibly damaging. Why is that happening? What are the failings? The draft river basin management plan states new legislation will be put in place to deal with this matter but the language is incredibly woolly. It is unclear what it will do and what the timelines are. As such, I do not see a solution to this coming down the line in the near future.

There is also the issue of unauthorised drainage. We know this is an issue but it is unclear how widespread it is. Is it just landowners draining bits of their land such as wet corners of fields? The local authority waters programme, LAWPRO, has flagged this as a significant issue in terms of silt pollution. I presume that would be a mix of both the authorised and unauthorised drainage. In essence, land drainage is happening and is damaging whether it is authorised or unauthorised. Given the impacts, we really need to up our game in terms of the regulatory structure overseeing land drainage and have an enforcement plan to cut out the unauthorised drainage.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

I thank Dr. McGoff. As regards the Arterial Drainage Act 1945, the committee recommended that the Act be reviewed in its report published before Christmas.

Mr. Fintan Kelly

The choices that have been made regarding drainage have significant environmental impacts, including biodiversity and climate impacts, not just on neighbours but on everybody. For example, the damaging of biodiversity has significant impacts on pollinators and horticulture. All these decisions are impacting on each other. To pull rewetting out on its own as the example seems to me to be picking and choosing.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

The Senator is holding up rewetting as an example. Mr. McDonnell mentioned that for every action there is a reaction. If we rewet what is potentially a grouse habitat, what will that do to biodiversity? Some of those habitats are grouse habitats. We need to understand when we talk about rewetting-----

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Mr. Kelly might come in on something like that later.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

-----we need to take a wider view on this.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

I thank Mr. Roddy. I will go to Mr. Kelly. Again, I ask him to be brief.

Mr. Fintan Kelly

On the point of whether the nature restoration or rewetting target is comparable to the climate action plan's reduced management intensity target, our assessment is they are directly comparable. This was confirmed to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine by Dr. Humberto Delgado Rosa of the Commission earlier this year. There are issues within the definition for rewetting and restoration in the proposal. We have asked the Commission to address that. Hopefully, that will address some concerns in the final version.

On the point of rewetting and impacts on species such as red grouse, if a degraded bog that has transitioned to a form of heath is rewetted and restored to a healthy raised bog habitat, that might displace the red grouse. If it were done properly, however, it would also result in probably more heath habitat around the new raised bog habitat. In many ways, you could benefit species that are dependent on both bog habitat and wet and dry heath habitat. It is not necessarily a clear trade-off. These schemes and projects can be designed appropriately and can benefit multiple species.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

I thank Mr. Kelly and Senator Higgins. Deputy Bríd Smith will join us from her office. Senator Dooley is happy for her to go before him.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I thank Senators Dooley and Ruane for letting me in ahead of them. I am under pressure due to a family commitment as well as Leaders' Questions. It is a very interesting and important discussion, as was said by others. I thank all the presenters for giving us their insights into this issue.

This question has been asked in other ways but I will ask the IFA and the INHFA quite directly about the extent to which they accept that there is a problem and that we have a biodiversity crisis. Do they, for example, accept the Environmental Protection Agency report on water quality or how SWAN has defined it? That is a direct question. I will not get into the argument about the science but do they accept that we have a crisis on our hands?

I have a little sympathy with the position outlined in the INHFA presentation insofar as it sees the law as being targeted at one of the best behaved population of farmers, namely, those on hillsides in the west, whereas it has been identified, particularly by SWAN, that the real problem with nitrates, nitrogen and pollution of our waters is coming from the south and the south east. That implies the real problem stems from the big dairy industry rather than hillside farmers and the emphasis in the legislation is on hillside farmers rather than on the damage done by that industry. It suggests a certain preoccupation in the law with those who live in the areas that are least offensive, including peatland areas and hills, etc. While I accept those areas need to be rewetted and it is very important, there is an imbalance in the way the legislation is looking at them rather than the biggest polluters from animals, fertilisers and slurry. I ask for a comment on that.

My last question is on Coillte and the Gresham House deal. We saw a major backlash from the public and many campaigns regarding this deal. The Government has decided that it had better not push this too far.

This is because it has recognised that what it is doing is allowing a company to buy itself carbon offsets to further pollute the land. As Coillte is the biggest landholder in the State, it is pretty disgraceful that the Government and Coillte have gone for this kind of response. I ask for comment on that. Will all the organisations represented tell me if they are opposed to that deal, especially SWAN and the Environmental Pillar, which have given us the clearest outline of what needs to be done for the environment? I thank the Cathaoirleach for letting me in.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

Will the farming organisations go first?

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

I will deal with Coillte first. This all stems from a decision taken in 2014 on the equalisation of premium payments for farmers and non-farmers. Once that decision was made, we saw a huge increase, approximately 40% on average, and probably more than that in reality, in the number of plantations being established by non-farmers. We have grave concerns that we raised directly with the Department regarding this because we do not know the impact on the community. Any work that looked at investor or non-farmer planting has just looked at the initial stages of planting and the jobs created when the forest is being established, but has not looked at the implications for that community. None of that premium or income from timber sales enters the community. We would like to see that studied. If the density of non-farmer planting within a community is small, the impact is obviously far less. If that density increased, there are concerns. The reality for communities is they, and we, do not know the impact. The issue of the non-farmer premium policy needs to be addressed. The reintroduction of the differential needs to be done. The IFA has met with Coillte on this. We said this fund is in existence but there should be no future investment fund deals and Coillte needs to look at alternative ways of reaching its target.

That is with regard to the question on forestry.

On water quality, we are seeing that the measures introduced on farms under consecutive nitrate action plans are beginning to take effect. We have to realise that when a measure is introduced, there is a lag time before it is demonstrated within the monitoring. It takes time for that measure to get through the system and to be reflected in the water quality. We are also realising that it is not just an issue of stock density. It is a complex issue and there are a number of different factors, including topography, the soil type, climate and weather, which all impact on the water quality, in addition to stock density. That is not the only factor. We are seeing improvements and additional measures being introduced and we are hoping these measures will address water quality issues.

Mr. Vincent Roddy

I thank Deputy Smith for her questions. As regards Coillte and Gresham House, our position is quite clear. We believe that in the new forestry programme, the forestry support scheme and grant aid scheme for afforestation should only be given to those who have actively farmed the land for five years. That would take out Gresham House. What happened with Gresham House should not have happened but it is a symptom of what had been happening and I do not believe we need to see that going forward. I hope that answers the question.

As regards the EPA report on water quality, it is a big concern. There is no doubt about that. I hear what members of the IFA have said about the changes to the nitrates derogation, which has been reduced. We hope that will have an impact on water quality. Water quality affects everyone and we need to see that improvement. If that does not work, we are going to have to go back and look at that again.

Mr. Condon is going to come in on the biodiversity, if that is all right, but I would just make one comment. We talk a lot about the science. My understanding from the Commission as regards nature restoration and rewetting is this: the text defines rewetting as "a deliberate action that aims to bring the water table of a drained peatland back to that of the peat-forming peatland; the peatland is rewetted when the mean annual water table is near or at the soil surface." That is how the EU sees that. If we are seeing it differently here. I hear what people are saying. Maybe if we were to go within a foot of the surface, some level of agricultural activity could continue but that is going to be difficult to understand. In recital 55 and the nature restoration regulation, it has clearly outlined three elements, namely, sphagnum moss, water buffalo, cranberry cultivation and blueberry cultivation. Interestingly, I understand blueberry cultivation involves mounding so I do not know how that is going to help in sequestering carbon. Maybe it can be done otherwise as well. That is what the Commission has outlined in recital 55. That would be alien to all Irish farmers. I might let Mr. Condon comment on the biodiversity.

Mr. Joe Condon

This is from the synthesis report on land use, which is under investigation and I am told is peer-reviewed. It states that land cover categories most associated with high biodiversity values occur predominantly in the Border, west and mid-west regions. I am reading that to mean that "high biodiversity value" exists in those areas. That is close to 40% of the agricultural area of the country. Something positive is happening in those areas. Otherwise, that mapping process could not exist and that evidence would not exist. That shows me that there is a high biodiversity value occurring in those areas. Where would you put a nature restoration law for something that is described as having a high biodiversity value? I will rest my point there.

Dr. Elaine McGoff

I would like to correct the record. Ms O'Sullivan said we are seeing improvements in water quality. I am afraid we are not. We are in some limited areas but those improvements are overshadowed by the declines. The last report said we had a 38% increase in nitrate river pollution and 28% in phosphates. It is not a good story. We have not seen the measures beginning to take effect.

In terms of hill farmers taking the brunt of the pain and dairy farmers causing the problem, it is very true that nitrate is a significant issue in the south and south east. That is normally the story we talk about because that is the main urgent pressure but there are also problems in the west of Ireland and very dense soils where there is phosphorus and silt run-off. Although a lot of the problems are driven by dairy intensification, unfortunately we also have problems on peaty soil because drained peaty soil can be incredibly damaging in terms of run-off as well. It is imperative that we get that addressed. Nature restoration is quite broad. We are talking about rewetting today but there are other measures that I hope will take effect in areas like the south and south east, like reconnecting rivers with their floodplains, which would in theory have potential implications for dairy farmers.

On the Gresham House deal, I do not remember what the SWAN position was but An Taisce was very much against it. Forestry needs a strategic plan. We are seeing forestry done in an ad hoc way. There is no overall plan for how we are going to get where we want to go, how we are going to protect the environment and how we are going to get social buy-in. What the Gresham House deal did was put the issue on steroids so we are going to see all the problems we are seeing with the forestry system amplified. We are very much against it. Mr. Kelly may talk about this; I see he has his hand up. Stop Climate Chaos and the Environmental Pillar, if I remember correctly, all called for Coillte's mandate be changed so it would prioritise biodiversity and climate issues. Until that happens, any massive ramp-up in Coillte activities is incredibly worrying from an environmental perspective.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I just want to come in on the point about the north west and midlands. There is something being conflated here. Yes, there are more high nature value farms in the north west and midlands and in the west of Ireland. That is absolutely the case and these farms are more associated with suckler beef rather than dairy. However, the issue we are talking about is rewetting. That is because of the carbon losses from farming grasslands on organic soils. It is important to point out that you could have high nature value farming but there can also be carbon losses because of the grassland or the farming practice on that type of soil. Just because there is high nature value farming unfortunately does not rule out the possibility of other negative impacts that might need to be addressed. That is the purpose of the nature restoration law. It is wrong scientifically to conflate the two. We have to look at things in the round. Our organisations have been extremely vocal and critical of the intensification of dairy in the south and south east and the water quality deterioration. We have been entirely consistent on that all along.

Mr. Fintan Kelly

I would just respond to Mr. Roddy's point where he quoted the nature restoration law. There is also a section in the preamble which states: "Member States can choose from a wide range of restoration measures for drained peatlands in agricultural use spanning from converting cropland to permanent grassland and extensification measures accompanied by reduced drainage, to full rewetting." In an Irish context, there are an awful lot of farmers who are farming on permanent grassland which is managed extensively. In the context of the nature restoration law there is a lot of farming ongoing that would meet the requirements of rewetting. It is not necessarily full rewetting that is being applied.

On Deputy Smith's point about Gresham House, I am representing the Environmental Pillar here today, which is an umbrella organisation of 32 of Ireland's leading environmental NGOs. We do not actually have a position on many aspects of the Gresham House deal. My personal view would be that a lot of the public sentiment around it relates to the private nature of the investor. That falls outside the scope of our environmental remit. However, we would have some concerns. We are supportive of Coillte lands being retained in public ownership.

We are supportive of Coillte lands maintaining public access and of Coillte leading the transition to a more sustainable forestry model. Essentially, that is a movement away from monocultures of Sitka spruce that are clear-felled. What we are observing of the Gresham House deal is that Coillte is effectively the manager for Gresham House and the latter is getting the same deal an Irish citizen would get in terms of environmental requirements. Gresham House is funding more unsustainable forestry in Ireland. That is not in line with what we would expect of Coillte and the State and we would not support more of that model of forestry.

As Dr. McGoff said, we wrote to relevant Ministers stating that we wanted the legal mandate of Coillte to be reviewed, along with Bord na Móna. We referenced the Gresham House deal because that deal exposes the lack of control the Government and the relevant Minister, Deputy McConalogue, have over Coillte’s decision-making. The Minister stated in the Oireachtas that the model Coillte had adopted was not the model the Government would have chosen. If that is not an alarming indication of the lack of control the State has over public bodies, I do not know what is.

Senator Timmy Dooley

I welcome all the participants. It is positive to see farmers and environmentalists around the same table. Not that long ago, we would had much more divergence, less dialogue and more bickering. There is some minor dispute, more about data than the global science of this. I understand the context of that. I am probably the only one on this side of the room who grew up in the environment talked about. Anywhere there is a challenge between rushes on one side and heather on the other, you are in that land. I was brought up on that. It was bred into us and was part of Government policy at the time to try to drain the land and improve it to the greatest extent possible. It helped to educate us and other families.

I now have the benefit of life and seeing how that practice needs to change but I will not lecture the people who have supported and elected me. I will try to encourage them to understand there is a way forward that is sympathetic to the environment. Being on this side, it is for me and others to try to ensure there is a viable livelihood for them. When we reflect on the way people emigrated from that land in the past when multiple families lived in relatively small areas, we see that is not viable any more. The land is barely able to sustain what is there.

We have to bring forward policies that meet the farming community's needs. It is incumbent on us to listen much more to the farming community. The science is established and accepted. That is a given. I keep saying of this debate that we need to move beyond the scientific debate and the environmental argument. That argument has been made and wider society accepts it. The only people left fighting, who of course will use everything available to them and every stone they can find to throw back, are the farmers because they feel this is being piled on them and forced on them. More than just respectful, we need to be open to their thoughts and ideas around how we should fashion policy to make their lives viable while accepting the scientific basis for the necessity for change. That is where it is challenging.

I thank the Senator for his comments. I will make a couple of general points. The climate crisis is obviously a massive problem that has to be addressed. I reiterate, my issue is that we must make sure the science is right for Ireland. I welcome Mr. Kelly's clarity on rewetting and that it does not necessarily have to go to the surface. If farming activity can still happen, there may be a window here. Anything that does happen needs to be done on a voluntary basis and has to be encouraged. It is the carrot and not the stick. That is the point we need to keep in mind. When we talk about climate change and the biodiversity crisis, it is a lifestyle choice for most people. I know sectors are impacted but for a lot of people it is a lifestyle choice. For farmers, this is our livelihoods. I appreciate that people in here get that but that cannot be forgotten. Farmers have worked hard to drain the lands mentioned by Senator Dooley and myself. They worked hard to do that, as their parents and grandparents did. It is in their DNA. To turn back the clock and say we are going to block up the drains and let that go wild is against everything they understand.

Mr. Micheál McDonnell

I echo the comments of Senator Dooley. Reclaiming peatland is also something I grew up with. The 20% of the reclaimed farm peatland enables us to farm the other parts of the farm in an environmentally proactive way. One is mutually beneficial to the other. That is an important point. If that land were rewetted, we are possibly taking his or her farming enterprise away. If he or she is not farming that land, it is going wild. Are we into an area of monoculture and maybe invasive species? In addition, if this land were rewetted we are taking him or her out of society, and from his or her contributions to local schools, shops, GAA and all of that. There is a huge societal impact. This is the conclusion of the land use review. The success of this reconfiguration will need to be measured in terms of contribution on climate mitigation, adaptation and just transition across full society and the whole of society wide. Farmers are part of that society too.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I will respond to Senator Dooley's point about land abandonment, without getting into the other issues. I hear him clearly on that. The land use review addresses the issue of land abandonment, and the fact that it can have a negative impact on biodiversity. These issues are extraordinarily complex and it is important for the committee to dive into the report in as much detail as possible to tease out the pros and cons. Another point is that we are facing into an era where our choices are disappearing. The IPCC has said over and over that the window of opportunity is receding and is closing at this point. The longer we wait to take action, the more drastic the steps will have to be. Unfortunately that is going to be even more politically contentious for many sectors and for the whole of society. It is incumbent upon us to heed the warnings of the scientific community and the climate scientists. That means reducing our emissions by at least 50% by 2030. In the agricultural and land use sector, it means accelerating the efforts to stem the loss of carbon and to increase the uptake of carbon sequestration. There are really few win-wins left if we leave it any longer.

Senator Lynn Boylan

Can I ask the Chair if I will be getting to speak at all?

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

The Senator will speak. We are running over time, but we are saving the best for last.

Mr. Fintan Kelly

I will make a general statement to welcome Senator Dooley's comments. These issues are obviously complex. The way we stay at agriculture, farmers often interpret as meaning that we are targeting farmers. When we speak of issues we have with agriculture intensification, we are not necessarily saying that the farmers are to blame. This is a much broader societal issue. This is the failure of generations of national and EU policy, market forces and society's attitudes towards farming, which have driven a cheap food model. In many ways farmers, along with the environment, are the biggest victims of the systems we have created. From the Environmental Pillar's perspective we feel that farmers are the solution, and this land use issue is at the forefront of this. It is not going to be simple or easy. In many ways, a lot of our most threatened species and habitats are dependant on farmers. They are dependant on high nature value farming. On the other side many farmers in these regions have come to be dependant on public supports like agri-environmental schemes and environmental supports. This is where we are. It is not all negative. We can come out the other end. We can protect family farms in these marginal areas and can continue to preserve values like the cultural, landscape and biodiversity benefits these farmers and communities deliver to society. It is quite a contentious issue, but also a positive issue. We have to get through this. We cannot weather the storm of climate change and biodiversity loss by ignoring it any longer. We have to work together and talk to one another to find a way and build a better future.

Senator Timmy Dooley

I will very briefly speak about something that tags on to what has been said by both groups. There are two examples in County Clare where the policy has not followed the effort made by the farmers. The first was on the Burren designated programme, where farmers changed their practice, which hugely benefited biodiversity. Their approach to farming got rid of all the hazel, and allowed the flora and fauna to recover. Now, the new ACRES scheme disincentivises farmers to continue that effort. That is wrong. I have made it clear to the Minister and the Department. It is not the Minister; it is the Department and some of the people who are driving it. That undermines farmers' confidence. Efforts were made by Michael Davoren and Brendan Dunford and others to get people on board, and they got on board. They were slow to do it because they did not see the benefit. Now that is being disincentivised with the changes to ACRES and some of the people will go back to putting out circular feeders and feeding silage on the land. It is not a benefit. It is a huge negative in terms of confidence. It is the same in the area that I come from, where the hen harrier scheme was introduced. That was a really good scheme, in fairness to the then Minister, John Gormley. Farmers were slow to buy in because they saw the restrictions on the designation. However, they got a bit of compensation. It helped them. They went back and the biodiversity of that land improved because of their adoption of the restrictions. That is now gone in the new ACRES scheme. It is great that we are trumpeting the fact that we have 45,000 or 46,000 farmers. Jesus, are we not we great? However, we are killing the bits in the middle and encouraging the intensive guys to put a bit of land into it. I get that there is a benefit there, but let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater in an effort to spread it right across the country when there was real and measurable progress. I do not think anybody would argue with the data coming out of the Burren and out of the hen harrier programmes. We need to get back to that and support those farmers much more. That is when you will get buy-in, when people see there is a consistent programme that will be there into the future. I apologise to my good friend, Senator Boylan.

Senator Lynn Boylan

Senator Dooley should give that speech to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

Senator Timmy Dooley

I have done.

Senator Lynn Boylan

It is important that agriculture and environment are around the same table and the more we see that, the better it will be for everybody. Nobody achieves anything by being at loggerheads.

I do have to say, though, that it is deeply regrettable that a representative of the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations-General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives, COPA-COGECA, came before the agriculture committee and gave misinformation to that committee, and had to issue a public statement retracting what he said. The quote at the time was, "My intention was to inform and to build understanding... and in truth I have done the opposite." That was carried by lots of the agricultural publications and frightened the bejaysus out of a lot of farmers by what was said in the agriculture committee. I think there is a responsibility on all of us, when we are talking, that we are putting facts into the domain and that we are having those reasonable conversations. Trust has come up so much during the conversation here, and I think trust is really vital. That is why we all need to be honest and transparent about the information we are putting into the public domain.

On the issue of trust, I want to ask Dr. McGoff and Mr. Kelly, on foot of their opening statements, about the mandate for Coillte and Bord na Móna. I am particularly interested in Bord na Móna and the Derryadd mid-Shannon wilderness programme. Again, it goes back to trust with a community and just transition. When Bord na Móna was ending the peat extraction on that site, it gave a commitment to the community that it was going to give the bog back to them. The community, the local authority and the senior planner all put together a plan for a wilderness park, which would be a win-win for everybody, for the community, for biodiversity, for a carbon sink. Yet now, we have Bord na Móna putting in one planning application for a wind farm on that site. It lost the judicial review, and now we hear it is going to do the same again. Would the changing of the mandate help with that?

By not doing that wilderness park, even Bord na Móna's plan for that site goes against Government policy and principle 16 of the national peatlands strategy, which states that cutaway bogs that flood naturally should be permitted to flood unless there is a clear environmental or economic case to maintain pumped drainage. I would not mind hearing the witnesses' views on that, and if they are aware of that particular project. I was down there at the weekend. It just seems like a no-brainer, that we would turn the pumps off and allow that site to go back to being a natural environment, and lead by example. If we are going to be rewetting land, it should be the likes of Bord na Móna and Coillte that are leading.

Dr. Elaine McGoff

Mr. Kelly answered most of that but we very much agree. Bord na Móna owns a significant proportion of the land. If we are going to ask farmers to take all of these steps, it is absolutely imperative that the State does whatever it possibly can on State land. We really need to lead from the front.

Regarding the remit from Bord na Móna, I know Mr. Kelly had some updates on that recently, so I am going to throw it over to him to answer.

Mr. Fintan Kelly

I thank Senator Boylan. I come from south Roscommon myself, so I grew up looking across Lough Ree towards those peatlands. I am very familiar with them, and very passionate about what they would bring to the region.

No. It was just an example of the importance of facts.

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

Absolutely. I thank Senator Boylan for that. If there are no other guests indicating to come in, we are right at the end, and we are over time. It was worth taking the extra bit of time to explore some of the issues. It really was quite interesting, and perhaps there was too much to try and grapple with in one session but both the land use review and the nature restoration law are issues that we will come back to repeatedly in the next few months.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Is it possible that we might do some written follow-up with some of the guests? I know there were a few questions that did not get answered but we are out of time, so might it be possible for the committee to do a written follow-up with some of the guests?

An Cathaoirleach (Deputy Brian Leddin)

If Senator Higgins wants to let me know which questions, we can relay them on to the guests for written follow-up.

I thank the witnesses again for their time this afternoon. It really was very helpful to us.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.19 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 18 April 2023.

Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate - Tuesday, 28 Mar 2023

Nature Restoration Law and Land Use Review: Discussion

Dr. Elaine McGoff

Mr. Fintan Kelly

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Joe Condon

Mr. Joe Condon

Dr. Elaine McGoff

Mr. Joe Condon

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Fintan Kelly

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Micheál McDonnell

Mr. Fintan Kelly

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

Mr. Fintan Kelly

Mr. Fintan Kelly

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Micheál McDonnell

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

Mr. Fintan Kelly

Mr. Joe Condon

Mr. Joe Condon

Dr. Elaine McGoff

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

Mr. Tadhg Buckley

Mr. Joe Condon

Mr. Joe Condon

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

Mr. Fintan Kelly

Mr. Micheál McDonnell

Mr. Micheál McDonnell

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

Dr. Elaine McGoff

Mr. Fintan Kelly

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Mr. Vincent Roddy

Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate -
Tuesday, 28 Mar 2023