Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 5 Oct 2022

EU Nature Restoration Target: COPA-COGECA

Chairman

We will hear from Mr. Niall Curley, policy advisor on biodiversity, soil and water at the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations-General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives, COPA-COGECA.

First, I must give the note on privilege. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and they may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside the proceedings held by the committee, of any matter arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in this committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurances in the context of participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts. Members should be mindful of this when they are contributing.

I put on record our appreciation of Mr. Curley's appearing before the committee at fairly short notice. Deputy Fitzmaurice has raised that there are important changes in regulations coming from Brussels on the classification of land and we appreciate Mr. Curley attending to brief us on same. I ask him to make his opening statement and we will follow that with questions from members.

Mr. Niall Curley

I thank the committee for inviting me to participate and give evidence. The nature restoration law proposal was released on 22 June 2022 alongside the sustainable use of pesticide regulation. Together they formed the nature package, as it was dubbed by the European Commission, and were brought forward in connection with the goals of the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030.

COPA-COGECA, the organisation I represent, has continually supported the European Union’s objectives of protecting, conserving and restoring our natural environment for the future of our planet, especially due to the role farmers and forest-owners can and already play for nature. In times of war, which we are in, the focus on food security becomes an aspect of critical importance. It is essential to take the necessary steps to ensure food supplies continue reaching those most affected, in Ukraine and globally. The cumulative impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, the energy price hikes, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have profound and long-lasting effects not only in the EU but also elsewhere in the world. With Covid-19 and the war between Russia and Ukraine this issue has re-emerged as a threat that can radically shake our society. Given the current politically precarious situation presented by the war in Ukraine, the risk of food shortages and unaffordable prices for food in numerous countries, the EU should put the objective of food, energy and raw material security at the forefront.

The main tenets of the nature restoration law are as follows. The European Union will enact legally binding targets upon member states up until the year 2050. The first target is for the entire EU to have 20% of all EU land and sea covered with restoration measures by 2030. The more comprehensive targets are restoration measures across the EU encompassing those habitats and ecosystems which have been designated as in "bad" condition within the reasoning of the habitats directive from 1992. The aim is to achieve a "good" condition of these target habitats up to 30% by 2030, 60% by 2040 and 90% by 2050. Among these habitats are wetlands; grasslands; river, lake, alluvial and riparian habitats; forests; steppe, heath, and scrub habitats; and rocky and dune habitats. In order to aid in the fulfilment of these targets, the EU will have every member state create a national restoration plan, in the same guise as the CAP strategic plans each member state had to fulfil. However, these will have the exact details of specific restoration measures with time-specific deadlines up until the year 2050. Each plan must designate the exact amount of area that will be covered in each decade up until 2050, the estimate financing, the funding mechanisms behind the measures, and the identification of harmful subsidies that will inhibit the fulfilment of these targets.

Within this law, there is a variety of articles to be aware of. First, Articles 4 and 5 speak of the overall targets over all EU habitats covered within the habitats directive, with specific note made for the only cases where non-fulfilment of the targets are acceptable. Article 9 focuses on agricultural ecosystems and inherent in this are targets for the restoration of 70% of all EU agriculturally-drained peatland by 2050, with 30% of all EU peatland to be rewetted by that year. Article 16 focuses on the access to justice clause which is long enshrined in the Aarhus Convention. However, these targets are clearly unachievable at the current rate and this article allows anyone who fits the requirements to bring a state to court for nonfulfillment and failure of that state to fulfil the targets.

I would be happy to elaborate on all of the above in order to allow for a better understanding of the proposal. I have attached a PowerPoint presentation I hope members have had a chance to look at carefully, as it refers to the specific targets.

No matter how much I can explain this, it pales in comparison to reading the document as well as the 12 impact assessments and annexes that will pave the way for the future of nature across Europe.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I thank Mr. Curley for highlighting this. I believe his organisation is pretty busy in other countries explaining to people what is going on. I believe many people are watching this evening. Am I right that the plan for drained peatlands is to go back 70 years from now and whatever was not shored or drained then, whatever we want to call it, to restore 20% by 2030, 50% by 2040 and 70% by 2050?

Mr. Niall Curley

Yes. Those target years and percentages are all correct. The 70 years is specific to certain habitats. The idea of 70 years is to go back to a certain level of habitat condition - to good or favourable condition. It is dependent on the habitat or the species that is established there. However-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

We will talk about peaty land if we can.

Mr. Niall Curley

For peat, it will mean rewetting to a certain extent 35% by 2050 and restoring 70% by 2050. Based on the annexes to the documents, restoration basically means rewetting. They do not give examples of measures other than rewetting to a certain extent. It does not mention what level, but rewetting is the main aim. The Commission made no distinction between restoration and rewetting. While the target says "restoration", it is 70% rewetting by 2050.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

The CAP contains different proposals that are voluntary for farmers. Is this a regulation or a directive? Is it a legally binding document that Europe is trying to bring forward?

Mr. Niall Curley

Yes. A directive is a law that is brought forward but member states have the ability and flexibility to make it accessible to their needs. A regulation means once it is implemented it is the law for the entirety of the EU. The specificities of this law will apply across Europe. Ireland and Romania will both face whatever is here. The Deputy mentioned the eco schemes. In conjunction with nature restoration, it is expected that these eco schemes, which run up to 2027 when the current CAP ends, will aim for the fulfilment of these targets. However, most of the eco schemes that Ireland and most other countries have proposed are not necessarily based on biodiversity and restoration measures. As a result, these targets will not be fulfilled under the CAP eco schemes the EU has given funding for. Unless many things change by 2030, Ireland will not achieve the aims and targets here.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I do not understand how all the gears in the EU work. I understand this is COM (2022) 304. The member states were written to. Has Ireland written back yet, giving our opinion? Based on documentation I have seen, I understand Sweden has opposed this regulation. Have any other countries opposed it? What is the process in this? Where does DG Environment come in? Where do the MEPs come in? Where does the Council of Ministers come in? What is the pathway on all this?

Mr. Niall Curley

In Ireland, it will come under the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. It is up to that committee to give an response and an opinion from the Oireachtas. Each member state is written to by the Commission and asked to check if this overreaches. It is the principle of subsidiarity to see if it goes down properly, is proportional and is not overreaching national laws. The Deputy is correct that Sweden has written back stating this is overreaching as the EU does not have full competence in forest matters. It has a partial competence. The Commission will argue back that this has changed as a result of a recent court ruling that found it has a competence when it comes to environmental matters. However, this is not the most reasonable answer given that 30% of all Sweden's forestry is under peatland and more than likely will need to be rewetted, which is a huge part of its economy.

Chairman

Have any other countries objected to this regulation?

Mr. Niall Curley

Finland is another one. This law specifically targets the restoration of specific areas and habitats. In many areas it is putting up a couple of trees or letting land be rewilded. In other countries, specifically northern countries, peatlands - forestry areas - will be affected. In many cases it is just the rewetting of agricultural and forestry peatlands, and the addition of basically wild forests. In this case, it is Ireland, Finland, Sweden and the Baltic countries as well as Germany to a certain extent and a bit of Denmark. It is mainly the Nordic countries.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I had understood the Netherlands had a lot of peaty soil. Is it in bother with this?

Mr. Niall Curley

It is. The Netherlands has a lot of peat in the north. The Dutch did a lot of peat extraction, like we do, with turf extraction, etc. However, much of their land is just basic wetlands. They will be in considerable bother either way because of the nature restoration. Article 4.2 refers to the re-creation. In many cases, they need to create nature where it did not exist in the first place to allow for a proper biodiverse ecosystem in that country. Either way, they are screwed.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Article 16 deals with access to justice. Have I read this right that NGOs, some of the environmental people who love writing to Europe and telling them all the stories about Ireland - have a right and will be covered financially under the Aarhus Convention or something to object to Johnny farmer in Galway, Mayo, Roscommon or wherever who did not rewet his piece of ground? They can take on the State if they believe the air quality or whatever is not adequate. Have I read that right or am I dreaming?

Mr. Niall Curley

Yes, 100%.

Under the criteria set out in the Aarhus Convention, a UN declaration to which the EU has signed up and we have to follow, NGOs will be able to sue their member state governments and bring them to the European Court of Justice for the non-fulfilment of these targets. A target will be set for each decade, that is, for 2030, 2040 and 2050. The first analysis or review of these targets and their fulfilment will happen many years after it has been fully implemented, to the extent that due to the lack of sincere funding, the legal structure here and in other member states and farmers or foresters owning land that they do not want to give up, there will be a significant backlash against this in general across Europe. I foresee, as so do COPA-COGECA and many people here in Brussels, member states being sued by NGOs across Europe in respect of this.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Ireland has property rights that are different from those in many other European countries. How does one fit that in? We have the right to private property, for example. Is that being diminished or what is going on?

Mr. Niall Curley

There is also an EU right to private property that is enshrined in the European charter on human rights. I understand what the Deputy is asking but the Commission is proposing a law that member states will have to implement. How they do so is up to them. If the Government is infringing on a person's right to private property, that is an issue for the Government, not for the Commission. How this is fulfilled is very much up to the member state. If it comes down to compulsory purchase orders to buy land to create a certain number of national parks or to force the rewetting of certain areas, that will be for the member state to deal with within its own legal systems. Once this is enacted, member states will have the ability to implement it because it will be enacted into law automatically and they will have a legal obligation to fulfil it. If they do not fulfil it, they will be sued.

Chairman

While it will be up to the member state to implement it, the percentages will be prescribed by the Commission.

Mr. Niall Curley

That is correct. As I stated, each member state will have a national restoration plan which will look very much like a CAP strategic plan but will plan up to 2050. For each tranche - every decade, let us say - the plan would have a specific amount of the measures, the specific funding the member state would have to put in place, and how far they expect to have achieved each decade or by whichever year it puts in place for that target. It will be up to member states, however, much like in the case of CAP strategic plans where they create eco-schemes to fit themselves. From the perspective of the Commission, as long as the targets are fulfilled, it does not matter. These are area-based targets, rather than being based on results, because it could take 20, 30 or 40 years, or even longer in certain areas, to achieve restoration. That is why it involves the imposition of specific measures over the actual specific area. I do not know if members have the PowerPoint presentation I submitted to the committee, but it notes that Ireland will be coming under the nature restoration target of agro-ecosystems, that is, agricultural peatland restoration. The total area of Ireland is 70,000 sq. km. Of that, the area of wetland habitat that is currently in bad condition is 3,500 sq. km, or 871,000 acres, which may sound small. It is unclear as yet what the figure falling under that target in terms of agricultural peatland will be. Ireland will have to fulfil up to 70% of its peatlands being restored to a certain level by that year.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I am trying to get my head around this 70-year thing. Is it that you go back 70 years and look at what you had? How does one square that circle? I ask Mr. Curley to elaborate on that. We were discussing it but sort of moved away from it. Has Ireland written back yet? After the State writes back to these people who are looking for the support or otherwise of each member state, does it go into Directorate-General 11? Where does it go? I ask Mr. Curley to take me along that trail.

Mr. Niall Curley

With regard to the 70 years, it is to get it to a certain condition. It could be ten years before or there might not be the necessity to put up such a specific year base but, in certain areas, it is to get a habitat to a specific year base in terms of pre-industrial. To take the example of peatlands, what has been done in Ireland is the extraction of peat in an industrial fashion by Bord na Móna. The aim will be to restore that to its condition prior to it having been industrially damaged.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Bord na Móna is rewetting some of its ground but I am not overly concerned about that. I am talking about farm families who reclaimed land - be it 10 acres, 20 acres or whatever - to make their farms sustainable. That is the big concern we have for every farmer. Every county will be affected by this. It is not just about what will happen outside my back door; this is going to affect every county. Does Mr. Curley agree in that regard?

Chairman

Before Mr. Curley replies, did I see somewhere that only 20% of the land can be Bord na Móna land?

Mr. Niall Curley

That is exactly it. Only 20% of the target for agricultural peatland can be covered by something other than agricultural area. That means forestry or peatland forestry or peat extraction. Only 20% of the target can come from Bord na Móna peat extraction areas, so the majority of the target must be met by agricultural peatland farms. As Deputy Fitzmaurice stated, it is people who drained their land 50 or 60 years ago, or even more recently, who will be most affected by this.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I want to let other members in because I have taken up enough time. I thank Mr. Curley for all the work he has done on this but I ask him to pass a little message to them out there that, especially after they cross the River Shannon, they will get a horrid shock if they think they are going to rewet what we have been trying all our lives to dry.

Chairman

Before I go to Deputy Martin Browne, who is the next speaker to come in-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Can the Chairman tell him to come in on the piece where I asked what the stages are?

Chairman

I would say we will have time to bring Deputy Fitzmaurice back in.

Deputy Martin Browne

On the issue of peat, what does restoring 70% mean? Is it peatland that has been drained or is it peatland where cattle have been grazing? That needs to be defined for us. Progress has been made with Bord na Móna and so on. Have exact parameters been defined in that regard?

Mr. Niall Curley

It means that agricultural peatland that has been drained for arable, grazing or any other form of agricultural use, no matter what it is, falls under this target to be rewetted or to be restored. Under the annexes of the areas and the measures that are to be followed to fulfil this target, it basically means complete rewetting. As regards the level, it does not necessarily mean to ground level but it will mean the filling up of dykes in bog land or along people's fields and, basically, the stopping of the drainage system that has been put in place to ensure this land is rewetted.

Deputy Martin Browne

Has Mr. Curley an idea of how much of that 70% has been done with Bord na Móna?

Mr. Niall Curley

No.

Deputy Martin Browne

Has progress been made?

Mr. Niall Curley

No. In terms of what the Cathaoirleach asked, Bord na Móna's lands will automatically fulfil the 20% target. In terms of the overall target for the restoration of agricultural peatlands, if my memory serves me correctly I believe that Bord na Móna owns 80,000 ha of peatland and 33,000 ha have already been put under restoration measures as part of their scheme. As per page 11, a large proportion of the target will be automatically covered by Bord na Móna.

Deputy Martin Browne

I read the EU's document and found an interesting subheading of consistency with existing policy provision in the policy area and the legislation aims to complement the existing environmental policy. Is the proposal designed to work in synergy with the EU environmental laws? Will the proposal give impetus to the group implementation of these laws? Are we talking about additional measures and expectations that are not already covered in current laws or plans which will result in land, for example, being put beyond use? What support systems will be in place? Who can avail of these supports and what sectors will be excluded? I ask my questions because the manner in which this proposal is going to be presented is crucial in how it is perceived and I would like to hear the thoughts of Mr. Curley on that matter.

Mr. Niall Curley

Completely new provisions and measures will have to be put in place. There are schemes already in place for example, farmed peat in the midlands that aims to restore peat on farmlands. There are some smaller schemes that do this work but also the Bord na Móna scheme. The Government can look at what already happens. For example, a couple of acres, which adds up to the percentage that Ireland has, will begin to fulfil the target. Overall, completely new measures will be put in place to fulfil the target.

On the percentage of land that will be put beyond use and supports to be put in place, this will come down to available funding. If my memory serves me correctly, the EU has pointed out that 12 EU funds should be able to fulfil this. According to my PowerPoint presentation that I circulated today, there is €14 billion to go to member states from 2021 to 2027 and this will cost about €7 billion a year. While that technically fits into half of the funding it does not take into account the other biodiversity funding that has already been put in place and utilised for other systems.

The scheme is completely disconnected from what measures will be needed. The main issue is to get farmers and forest owners or landowners in general to put in measures on the ground to rewet lands, plant trees and rewild to a certain extent but depending on the condition of the land. The measures have not been fashioned and the funding is not necessarily there. Currently, they will have to depend on the Common Agricultural Policy or CAP eco-schemes, the European agricultural fund for rural development, EAFRD, and the European agricultural guarantee fund or EAGF under CAP. A complete dependency on CAP funding is going to be used. One of the things that I as a representative of COPA-COGECA, alongside other stakeholders, land-based stakeholders and even green NGOs - with whom we seldom agree about a lot of things - agree on is that an EU nature restoration funding should be set in place here under multi-annual financial framework, MFF, negotiations in 2026-2027. Without that these targets will never be fulfilled and the money for the schemes that are not peatland-based will never be fulfilled. It is mainly about talking to the landowners and explaining why it is important this work is done, how it is done and what are the benefits. Restoration is important but the issue is getting there. If the money is not there and the extent of the law overreaches then nobody will benefit and this provision will literally be a waste.

The CAP will run up until 2027 so that is the current one that has eco-schemes, which we have just put in place. These are short-term measures for long-term goals up until 2050. Therefore, these measures are not adequate for long-term planning, especially when building a national restoration plan up until 2050.

Deputy Martin Browne

Does Mr. Curley know how many sectors are excluded under the new measures and if so, which ones?

Mr. Niall Curley

No.

Deputy Martin Browne

The Committee on Public Petitions has discussed the technical side of the nature restoration target over the past month or so. A chap attended that committee to highlight the problem of the widespread use of pesticides in public areas by local authorities and others. Now the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine spoke to us about sustainable use and stipulates that pesticides should not be used in areas used by the general public unless, one, a risk assessment shows that their use is necessary and, second, that appropriate risk management measures have been put in place. Many councils have tried non-chemical alternatives. The Department's monitoring regime in terms of adherence to the sustainable use directive was less than rigorous. Now we know the effect that these substances have on wildlife and water sports how will the nature restoration target, if enacted, address the problem?

Mr. Niall Curley

The sustainable use directive, SUD, will become the sustainable use regulation, SUR, which will put in place specific measures and binding targets to reduce the use of pesticides. How that feeds into nature restoration is minimal enough.

Chairman

Sorry, Mr. Curley, a vote has been called in the Dáil Chamber so Senator Paul Daly will take the Chair and two Senators will ask their questions. I hope that Deputies will return after the vote because a few members will want to ask questions. If we are not back, then Senator Daly will suspend the meeting but he will keep the meeting going with the two Senators.

Senator Paul Daly took the Chair.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Daly)

I suggest that Mr. Curley will answer the questions posed by Deputy Browne when the Deputies return. As the Chairman has explained, Senator Dolan and I will ask questions and if we get answers then I will suspend the meeting until the Deputies return.

Like Deputy Fitzmaurice, I am trying to get my head around this matter. Mr. Curley is very well versed and knowledgeable about this matter and I apologise in case some of my questions sound silly but I want to play devil's advocate and tease out a couple of points.

I have a small suckler farm located along the edge of the Bog of Allen in County Westmeath.

We have fields that you could not get a plough into at one end and that you would not try to plough at the other end because the tractor would sink. How will the proposal work in such circumstances? My first question is on the percentage. Is the percentage – be it 20%, 30% or 70%, given the year – a percentage of the peatland drained for a commercial purpose, be it peat extraction or agriculture, or of our overall landmass?

Mr. Niall Curley

I am from Roscommon, so I know what it is to have that kind of land, though the land in Roscommon is better than Westmeath.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Daly)

It will not be when wetted.

Mr. Niall Curley

Sorry, that just slipped out. It comes down to peatland drained for agriculture. It is technically under the agroecosystems provision, so it will entail land drained for agricultural use, not the wetlands in their entirety. Many wetlands, including the blanket bogs on the west coast, are already in moderately good condition, according to the habitats directive. The measure will primarily affect people like the Senator and people where I come from, where land has been drained for use by suckler farmers or sheep farmers at the side of the bog. Sometimes it will be an entire farm, and sometimes part. That is what the specific target is for. The preference is for the rewetting and restoration of peatland that has been used for arable purposes. Such land might be drained better in certain areas but it is still regularly ploughed, harrowed and seeded. The whole point is to stop the use of tilling implements as tilling releases carbon into the air. When using peatland for arable use, you are regularly opening up the soil and releasing carbon. Retaining carbon is the point of rewetting peatlands. We do not reject or negate this; it is a commonly known fact and we understand this now. The objective will be to turn arable peatlands into pasturelands. It will entail farmers converting their business model from an arable one to a livestock one if they wish, but it comes down to the dependent region. Where there is pastureland on the side of a bog, it is usually because it is not fit for arable use. It is this land that will primarily be targeted for rewetting. I hope that answers the question.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Daly)

Mr. Curley is saying the emphasis will be on arable land and that if somebody sets grass, it will be accepted as restoration. Am I picking him up correctly on that?

Mr. Niall Curley

Yes, so-----

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Daly)

Consider the case of land that has been in grass for the past 20 to 50 years, for sheep or other livestock, and that has peaty soil although it has never had turf harvested from it commercially or otherwise. Is that land part of the land being targeted?

Mr. Niall Curley

Yes.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Daly)

So, what happens the man who already has land in grass? Is Mr. Curley saying that a man who agrees to put grass cover on land that he is currently tilling will be returning it to a state in which it will capture carbon?

Mr. Niall Curley

It will come down to the blocking of the drains that have been dug in the far-distant or recent past to keep the land drained. The main thing will be to ensure the land becomes more sodden, or wetter peatland. This is a target for land across Europe. There are many more arable peatlands across the rest of Europe than in Ireland. We have a lot more peatland in pasture. The definition has been put in and it shows a preference but, when it comes down to the Government writing its plan, it will be a question of its writing it to ensure the measures are fulfilled, or that the agricultural peatland will be rewetted. I foresee that when the measure is being put forward, it will be mainly sheep and cattle farmers who will be asked to rewet their land to a certain extent by blocking drains or removing them to allow it to revert to a certain extent. The Commission mentions that it does not necessarily mean the complete removal of activity. If you can continue to farm the land, good for you; however, in many cases, where land is already quite wet and the drains are dealt with already, the land will have to be allowed to revert to a certain extent if it comes under the specific targets the Government wishes to put in place.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Daly)

I do not wish Mr. Curley to get me wrong. I am not in any way attempting to shoot the messenger. I am asking these questions to get my own head around the issue. I know we are probably on the one page. Will land that is already drained and used for grazing not be far less poached than land that is wetted and still used for grazing? A lot more carbon could be released if the water level is allowed to rise where sheep or cattle are grazing the land. Would the land be poached a lot more by virtue of the hooves of the cattle breaking the soil, because it is softer underfoot?

Mr. Niall Curley

I understand what the Senator is talking about regarding poaching but the definition is not necessarily a definition with regard to the two different types of agricultural use that will make a difference in respect of how Ireland puts in place the measure. I understand what the Senator is saying but ploughing the land releases a lot more carbon than poaching. Poaching breaks the soil to a certain extent but ploughing goes deeper. Arable land is preferred because it is regularly ploughed, harrowed and seeded, perhaps with a two-year rotation. This is not the case with pastureland, however. The latter and wet land in general may be poached and have its own issues owing to tractors, for example, but the same amount of carbon will not be released. Rewetted pastureland will retain a larger amount of carbon because it entails a different type of agricultural activity being reduced or altered, if that makes sense.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Daly)

It kind of makes sense. None of it makes sense and it all makes sense, if you know what I mean. When we started out today, having read Mr. Curley's presentation, and when Deputy Fitzmaurice was asking his questions, I was happy that because we have so many commercial Bord na Móna bogs out of commission, we could have met all our targets. Now Mr. Curley is saying only 20% of the overall amount of land can be Bord na Móna land.

Mr. Niall Curley

Yes.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Daly)

Why would that be? One would imagine that if the idea is to hold carbon or improve biodiversity, the Bord na Móna bogs are the ones that need to be targeted. When Mr. Curley said only 20% of the land could be Bord na Móna owned, it sounded to me as if the measure was almost specifically designed to target agriculture.

Mr. Niall Curley

That is exactly what it is designed for. It is meant to target agricultural peatland to reduce the amount of active peatland used for extraction or exploited for agriculture or forestry.

This is just a proposal that came out back on 22 June. It has, however, been written over the past two years. I received a leak and some colleagues and I really pushed for something of this variety to be added to the law or to the proposal in general to acknowledge the amount of peat extraction areas it will be necessary to be re-wet here and to allow that, because of the sheer magnitude of agricultural and forestry peatlands that will be targeted.

It came up with this figure back in June. It started back in January, February, March, originally, and then it was back with this 20% in June which we were happy to see in the first place because it was movement in general. However, this is still a law that can be audited. It will be audited a lot. I will wait for Deputy Fitzmaurice to come back because he wants to hear about the specific timings nd where we are with specific institutions. However, I can repeat them.

When it comes to how it will be audited, the opinion and wish, specifically of green NGOs, is to completely remove that 20% in the first place, because allowing that diminished target is adverse to what they want. There is already a target completely on wetlands and their habitats, that is, raised and blanket bogs and calcareous fens - you name it. However, this is about actively-used bogs or peatlands that are used for peat extraction, agriculture or forestry. This is what this specific target of up to 70% to be restored by 2050 is about.

There will be a fight within the Parliament and the Council with regard to the level of this by the time it ends. When it is voted on at the end, I expect it to be quite an altered proposal because of peatlands.

Acting Chairperson (Senator Paul Daly)

We will wait until Deputy Fitzmaurice comes back for Mr. Curley to go through the timelines. This might sound of the radar to Mr. Curley. The land I am talking about, which is probably the same in his situation, is at home where my father, God be good to him, got EU money to drain it. Now, depending on where the funding is coming from, be it compensation or otherwise, it sounds as though there is a possibility that I will be compensated to re-wet the land. Is there a case anywhere against the EU for misappropriation of European monetary fund, EMF, funding for such ludicrousness.

Mr. Niall Curley

Whether there is a case is a question. I think here is a very big case because, if we go forward with this, as it currently stands, there will be a massive waste of money. I completely understand. I do not know what the financial situation was but we were supported, in general, and told to drain land as a model throughout Ireland, especially peatland. That was the guiding light of agricultural wisdom. We were supported to plant forestry on peatlands because it was an added income. Now, it will be the expectation that even the forested peatlands will be restored to a certain extent if they come under what Ireland decides to do. It is a complete reversal of what we were supposed to be doing.

With regard to funding, there is considerable money in the EU and it spends as it sees fit. The CAP is from 1960. Thus, it is a long time coming at this stage, given the amount of land and money that has been wasted back and forth with regard to what it is doing here.

Acting Chairperson (Senator Paul Daly)

I will go back on what Mr. Curley said there a minute ago. Is there a possibility that restoration to original quality could mean deforestation on peatlands where there had been forestry?

Mr. Niall Curley

Yes. It does mean that. I think Article 10 deals specifically with forest areas but it is mainly for pristine or traditional forests. This is peatland. I know there are restoration areas in peatland areas in Finland that are forests but restoration of those areas means the re-wetting of forested areas. In these cases, depending on how the measures are designed and how Ireland decides to put the schemes and programmes forward, just like any other country, it could mean that land that has bogland on which forestry has been promoted, could be taken off again and forcibly kept that way.

Senator Aisling Dolan

It is great to have a representative from County Roscommon here. I welcome Mr. Curley. I suppose he would know about where we come from in the west and the challenges we face. We already have many areas under conservation in the west of Ireland. We have many areas of conservation. That is very much be down to its geographic make up and landscape. It is limestone. Quite a large number of areas are already protected by these areas of conservation. We know these very well in our area. I will speak about the nature restoration Bill. The target, Mr. Curley mentioned in his opening statement, is approximately 20% to 24% of European Union land mass for restoration. The Republic of Ireland is one of the smaller countries. How does the EU propose to look at this on a country basis?

Mr. Niall Curley

It is 20% of all EU land and sea area to be covered by restoration measures by 2030. That is the specific target that the EU has set itself. Member states are being asked to set out the amount of area they planned to restore by 2030 and when it tots up the figures, it will look for the percentage to be 20%. If it is not, the EU will come back to the member states to tell them how much they need to increase it by. It is, supposedly, up to the member state to then fulfil that. The EU maintains that the member state will have the final word. However, there are many areas in Europe that are devoid of any data in the first place. There are no data in the impact assessments provided by the EU for Romania, which is one of the biggest countries in Europe.

The Senator brought up SACs. That specific target is outside of restoration. When I created the slide show, I thought I would be doing a presentation. That is why I did it that way.

Senator Aisling Dolan

We have the presentation in front of us. Mr. Curley speaks about the background of Copa Cogeca on the first slide.

Mr. Niall Curley

Yes and the Senator will see a biodiversity strategy on the third slide. There are four different pillars within the biodiversity strategy; protect and restore nature, enable transformative change and EU action to support biodiversity globally.

Restoration comes under the second pillar. Special areas of conservation are a different thing and they may be a tangent to this discussion. Perhaps we need to raise awareness that coming down the track for all EU countries, particularly Ireland, are targets to protect 30% of all EU territorial land and sea. This includes national parks under Natura 2000. If memory serves, the specific percentage for protection is 18%. A total of 12% of all EU land will have to be under a protection order by 2030. These targets are coming and how they will be divvied up and the pledges will be released in November or December. A target of 10% strict protection is attached to this. This strict protection means no activity will be able to take place. At present this percentage is 3%. I mention this because it is hoped the restoration measures taken in the first years can be done in special areas of conservation and areas included in Natura 2000. This would mean the brunt can be taken later. This is the hope of those of us in Brussels who are working for stakeholders such as farmers and foresters.

Senator Aisling Dolan

The challenge where we come from is having a viable farming sector while also having to deal with the landscape we have. The overall aim of nature restoration is food security. It is about healthy ecosystems. The overall goal is trying to ensure we have clean water. This has been introduced along with the habitats directive and the birds direct. The EU is also looking at how to maintain or encourage clean water in our rivers. Mr. Curley has reviewed impact assessments. Is there one that is particularly relevant for Ireland? There are a number of impact assessments. Are they country based? How does Mr. Curley see countries working to have viable farming sectors, particularly with small farming families? Communities are already at the pin of their collar trying to manage this.

Mr. Niall Curley

With regard to what Senator Dolan has said about healthy water, water quality, soil quality and a healthy environment that will increase our ability to continue to produce in general, the law builds on previous legislation in these areas. We have the water framework directive, the habitats directive and the water sludge directive. There is a variety of legislation that is being built upon and used for specific targets. The habitats directive is from 1992 and protection orders were put in place through Natura 2000. One of the main reasons this is a legally binding regulation is that when the directive has been assessed it has not been viewed as successful. In the opinion of the Commission this is due to having allowed it to be voluntary in the first place. The Commission is including legally binding targets in this so that member states will be pulled up and assessed as to why, where and how they are failing to achieve these targets. These targets are building on existing legislation.

The impact assessments are done per ecosystem. There are 12 impact assessment reports as part of this. Senator Dolan can check them out. There is one on soil. There is another on peatlands that I would check out as being of interest to Ireland. There are also the annexes. I have them open on my computer because this is all I do every day.

Senator Aisling Dolan

Mr. Curley is an expert on it.

Mr. Niall Curley

I hope that at this stage I know a few bits about it. I will find it shortly. Senator Dolan raised the impact it will have on farms and viable agricultural sectors. If I knew the answer now I would already be the head of COPA-COGECA. A specific impact assessment on rural communities, rural dwellers and activities has not been created. This is something that COPA-COGECA has been calling for consistently. We would like a sincere and concrete impact assessment on the socioeconomic impact this will have on rural areas.

Senator Aisling Dolan

What Mr. Curley is saying is so true. What we want to see and what we are seeing is farmers leading on many technologies to manage the demands. Our population is growing at global level. It is down to our farmers to provide food security at a global level. We are all working towards common goals. The overall aim of this is food security and having healthy ecosystems so that we continue to lead and have larger communities in rural areas. I wanted to emphasise Mr Curley's point.

Mr. Niall Curley

I thank Senator Dolan.

Deputy Jackie Cahill took the chair.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I was listening to this from my office and when I heard about the 20% cap on Bord na Mona I decided to come down. How did it come about? Very few farms are comprised of 100% peatland but there are farms where it comprises far more than 20% of the holding. These farmers might have to rewet all of the peatland regardless of what proportion of the holding it comprises. Is this correct?

Mr. Niall Curley

Yes.

Deputy Michael McNamara

How did the 20% cap for Bord na Mona come about?

Mr. Niall Curley

How we deal with legislation is that we get a first look on which we create an opinion and then we develop it with the Commission to a certain extent. We advise. The first proposal was leaked and originally there was no cap-----

Deputy Michael McNamara

For anybody?

Mr. Niall Curley

There was no cap because it did not allow for peat extraction areas, such as Bord na Mona areas or forested peatlands, to be included as drained agricultural peatlands. That, after a lot of pushing, they were included in the first place is significant. What is there is too much for some groups. If we speak to people working for various organisations it is too much for some and for others it is too little. The reality is that until three months ago it was not there in the first place. It would not have allowed Bord na Mona lands to be considered part of the target.

Deputy Michael McNamara

Not all Bord na Mona lands are subject to extraction now. A certain proportion of its lands have not been subject to peat extraction for a considerable period of time. Does the regulation state that any land that was ever subject to extraction is exemp? Was that the initial proposal?

Mr. Niall Curley

No. They were already specific targets. These habitats or ecosystems are already covered. They are the wetlands part of the habitats that need to get to 90% by 2050. The targets are 30%, 60% and 90% by 2030, 2040 and 2050 respectively. These peatland habitats already have to be rewet and restored to a certain level of good condition, which is yet to be defined per country.

These areas will have to be rewetted in general but, taking the agricultural aspect out of it altogether, they are talking about them because they are drained peatlands in the first place. If Bord na Móna owns that land and it is drained, that is what they are talking about. If they are drained bogs that have forestry, that is what they are talking about, because it is the drained peatlands that are adverse to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I understand what Mr. Curley said about drained peatland, but how do areas that were subject to peat extraction and were drained peatland end up being exempted? Perhaps I have missed something.

Mr. Niall Curley

Could the Deputy say that again?

Deputy Michael McNamara

Mr. Curley said that initially, under the first proposal, all Bord na Móna lands that were subject to peat extraction were exempted and did not have to be rewetted. Then, under the second proposal-----

Mr. Niall Curley

No, they do.

Deputy Michael McNamara

-----it was capped. They were included but there was a cap at 20%.

Mr. Niall Curley

Originally, Bord na Móna lands were already going to have to be rewet or restored under the wetland targets. According to this law, these lands have to be rewet to a certain extent. Under the current and only proposal, a cap has been introduced, and land that has been drained for peat extraction can be used in meeting the target. Of the 70% of peatlands that have been drained in whatever country across Europe, areas that were previously extracted for peat can now be considered in partial fulfilment of that target, with fewer measures of rewetting and restoration being taken in farming areas. If anything-----

Deputy Michael McNamara

To be clear, 70% of agricultural areas that were comprised of drained peatland had to be rewet, and all Bord na Móna lands had to be rewet, under the first proposal. Under the second proposal, up to 20% of Bord na Móna lands could be included in the 70%.

Mr. Niall Curley

Yes.

Deputy Michael McNamara

What happens to the other 80% of Bord na Móna lands?

Mr. Niall Curley

They are already under the wetland restoration target.

Deputy Michael McNamara

Sorry, it is slightly complicated.

Mr. Niall Curley

The Deputy is dead right. It is a complicated one. If we say "peatlands" so many times, we lose the sense of the word. The Deputy is correct in questioning it. One of the main issues that we - and a lot of people - have with this is the fact that it is quite a complex law proposal already. The draft for which the Council is pushing this coming November will contain specific amendments and a lot more definitions. There will be a lot more clarity, for which member states have asked on a lot of issues in this regard to. It is an extraordinarily complex and unclear proposal in terms of the legal wording.

Deputy Michael McNamara

What about Coillte peatlands? Do I understand correctly that if they are the subject of afforestation, they do not have to be rewet but if they are not afforested, they do have to be rewet?

Mr. Niall Curley

No. The 20% can include Coillte. Any activity outside of farming can be included in the 20%.

Deputy Michael McNamara

What happens the rest? A lot of the Coillte estate is comprised of peatlands that are planted with Sitka spruce. What happens all of that?

Mr. Niall Curley

I could not tell the Deputy. It is how they decide to fulfil the target. It can be decided that the Sitka spruce or whatever species of fir tree that is planted onto peatlands will be used. When the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications is writing this national restoration plan, it can decide whether the Coillte lands will be used for restoration. It is literally down to that, as long as it fulfils the specific restoration targets that are set. Some 70% of all EU agricultural peatlands must be restored by 2050. That does not necessarily mean that 70% of all agricultural peatlands in Ireland is considered under that target.

Deputy Michael McNamara

Where does this legislation go from here? What is the process to be followed? I presume it is co-decision legislation. What happens from here? I ask Mr. Curley to go through it briefly. I appreciate that we are out of time.

Senator Paul Daly

I was in the Chair earlier when the Deputies were away. Deputy Fitzmaurice must have been detained because we brought up this issue and Mr. Curley said he would wait until Deputy Fitzmaurice came back because the Deputy had asked about it. As Deputy Fitzmaurice must have been detained Mr. Curley will probably have to go through it.

Mr. Niall Curley

I can answer now in his absence.

Deputy Michael McNamara

Deputy Fitzmaurice asked that I get an answer to this question. That is why I am asking it.

Senator Paul Daly

Deputy Fitzmaurice must have been detained. Mr. Curley can fire ahead with that.

Mr. Niall Curley

It is going to go to a co-decision. I will deal with the parliamentary aspect first. The proposal will be covered primarily by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in the European Parliament. The rapporteurs have been appointed, and a report will be produced. The process is currently headed by César Luena, of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. The report will be published. I have heard recently that it is expected in January. Currently, there are other committees that are looking for the competence to have an opinion on this matter. Among them are the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on Fisheries, and the Committee on Regional Development. The competences are divided up in the Conference of Committee Chairs, CCC. The CCC was held recently on 13 September, if memory serves me right, but a decision was not made due to conflict on the specific articles in respect of which each committee wanted to have competence. A meeting was held on Monday with regard to this specific area, again, on co-ordinators. As far as I am aware, no actual decision was made. So far, the competences have not been divided up and the rapporteurs have not been appointed for each of the other committees. It cannot be finished within the Parliament until all competences have been divided up and opinions made, and a common position from the Parliament is created. They are expecting that this can be done by summer but I would be very wary of that possibility. That is where we currently are on that.

On what the Commission actually expects overall for this law, it expects that it will be implemented in 2024. Then the plans will be put in place for 2026 after two years of actually writing and reviewing the plans, and they will be fully implemented by 2026-27. That is where that is. Apologies for going off on a tangent there.

Currently the Council is under the Czech Presidency. The Czechs have had six meetings within the working party on the environment on this matter, mainly to properly clarify certain issues within it. As I mentioned, there were a lot of issues with regard to definitions and the lack of clarity. As was remarked upon recently to me, the fact that there have been five meetings since July shows the sincere lack of clarity with this law and the amount that needs to be cleared up.

The Czechs are expecting to have the drafting process done in November. It is then expected to go to the Swedish Presidency. However, it will be moderately delayed under the Swedish Presidency due to the lack of will and the fact that it has a new government coming in. As Sweden has the largest area of peatlands in Europe, and this is completely about peatlands in certain respects, I doubt that they will be that fast with regard to getting it done. It will then go to the Spanish Presidency, which is in the second half of next year. However, the original plan was that by the summer of next year the Swedes would have created a common position within the Council and then it would go to trilogues under the Spanish Presidency. I do not see that happening in general, but that is the current trajectory and preliminary calendar.

Chairman

Hopefully, it will not happen at all.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I thank Mr. Curley.

Deputy Martin Browne

I want to get an answer to the question I asked earlier about the pesticide aspect of the nature restoration target. We had a petitioner before the Committee on Public Petitions who raised concerns. Does the risk assessment show the use of pesticides is necessary? Are risk management measures being put in place? If enacted, what will the restoration target do to address that? We know the effect pesticides have on wildlife and watercourses and the danger they create for the public.

Mr. Niall Curley

I am sorry, but I am not an expert on pesticides and the SUR proposal. I have a colleague who deals with that particular issue, specifically the risk assessment and risk management part of it. How it translates with regard to the nature restoration law is that it is going to be incorporated specifically in the first areas that are going to be restored where we will not be able to use pesticides due to the fact that they will be restored to a certain level where pesticides would not have been used. The first areas to be restored, as I indicated in response to some Senators previously, will be in protected areas, which means that we cannot use pesticides. That is the only area to which this translates with regard to pesticides in the nature restoration. I am sorry, but I do not think that answers the Deputy's question. They are part of the nature package. They work together but they are not necessarily related. They are just about the reduction of inputs and the increase of nature together.

Deputy Martin Browne

I appreciate that Mr. Curley cannot give me the answer, but could we get an answer in writing?

Mr. Niall Curley

If the Deputy sends me an email with the specific question, I will get in answered by my colleague within the coming days.

Deputy Martin Browne

I thank Mr. Curley.

Senator Paul Daly

I appreciate that it is not Mr. Curley's brief, but I wish to ask about international trade agreements with the EU and whether we will import foodstuffs in particular from areas we do not expect to meet the same kind of standards that will be set in the new laws. I refer specifically to the importation of food from Brazil where I presume they will still be removing rainforests at the same time the powers-that-be here will be trying to get us to restore nature.

Mr. Niall Curley

That is something we have brought forward to the Commission as well. The fact is that if this is not applied across the board, it is greenwashing. It will remove large swathes of land from active and intensive agricultural production as well as forestry production and it will cause a severe reduction in the volume of food and wood fibre that is created. It is going to be basically a greenwashing of any future trade agreements because of the fact that we will already need to import different types of food and resources from different areas. I always refer, for instance, to the area that will need to be reduced to fulfil the targets in Finland and Sweden, because of the thousands of hectares of forestry that will need to be completely removed to specifically fulfil these targets, specifically when we are going into a resource crisis due to the war and previously due to Covid. It is going to be a serious obstacle, first, to the fulfilment of this and, second, to the future of how we do business in Ireland and in Europe because it is going to come down to an increased volume of trade with third countries.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Curley very much. He has spoken a lot this evening about the restoration of land. I am a farmer and I take the restoration of land to mean making it productive but this is going in the exact opposite direction. We found the briefing very good. It is time that we sat down with the Minister and pointed out these issues. We have a serious problem at the moment with getting land for forestry. This is going to make the availability of land for forestry impossible, as the amount available will be reduced. At the moment a good proportion of land is designated as SACs or protected areas for various birds and the compensation paid to farmers is minuscule. The capital value of designated land has been reduced by 80%. After such designation, land that was worth €4,000 or €5,000 an acre is worth €1,000 or €1,200 an acre. If the proposals Mr. Curley talks about go ahead, the capital value of the land that will be "restored" will be decimated. Regarding Sweden and its opposition to this measure, it is time that some straight talking was done. As he stated, the world's ability to feed its population is coming under more and more pressure. The climatic benefits must be balanced with our ability to produce food. He has given us a very clear indication of the impending regulation. I expect we will be back to him in the future to inform us further as this regulation progresses through the Commission. I thank him for his prompt reply to us and for coming before the committee this evening.

Mr. Niall Curley

I might just add one final note in response to what you said, Chair, about discussing this with the Minister. I do not wish to be disrespectful to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, but this area comes under the remit of the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. While it is extraordinarily important that this be discussed in any forum and education regarding it progressed, it will be necessary to speak to the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and the Department because they are the ones who are going to have the final say within the Council. I thank the committee for having me before it this evening. I am happy enough to come back and talk about this at any time.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Curley very much. The committee will meet tomorrow, 6 October at 10.30 a.m. to launch its report on pre-legislative scrutiny of the agricultural and food supply chain Bill 2022 in the audiovisual room. There will be an opportunity for a photograph with the report on the plinth at 10.20 a.m., subject to the weather.

The next public meeting of the committee will take place at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 October, when the Minister will come before the committee as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny of the veterinary medicinal products medicated feed and fertilisers regulation Bill 2022. The committee will also meet at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 October, when we will examine peat supply for the horticultural sector. There will be a private committee meeting on Tuesday at 3.30 p.m. On Thursday week as well, we will have the launch of the report on issues impacting on dog welfare in Ireland. That will be at 1 p.m., with a photo opportunity at 12.50 p.m. We have a fairly full agenda for the next couple of days.

The joint committee adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 7 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 October 2022.