Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 12 Oct 2022

Impact of Peat Shortages on the Horticulture Industry: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

I remind all witnesses, members and those in the Gallery to turn off their mobile phones. Today's meeting is the continued examination of the horticultural peat supply. The committee will hear from representatives of Growing Media Ireland, the Commercial Mushroom Producers Co-operative Society Limited and the Kildare Growers Group. The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage has declined our request to come before the committee in respect of this matter. As Chair, I am disappointed that we have the industry in again on the same subject. I would have hoped, when we dealt with it before, that more progress would have been made. I am disappointed that we have to revisit the supply of peat to the horticulture industry. All those present in the committee room are asked to exercise personal responsibility to protect themselves and others from the risk of contracting Covid-19.

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. 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.

From Growing Media Ireland, GMI, we are joined by, Mr. John Neenan, chair, Mr. Kevin Mahon of Klasmann-Deilmann and Mr. James Spillane of Westland Horticulture.

From the Commercial Mushroom Producers, CMP, Co-operative Society Limited, we are joined by Ms Orla McManus, chief executive, and Mr. Mel O'Rourke, specialist adviser. Joining us remotely from the Kildare Growers Group, KGG, are Mr. Kieran Dunne and Mr. Patrick Gleeson. I understand they will not be delivering an opening statement, although they will be available to answer questions. I call Mr. Neenan.

Mr. John Neenan

On behalf of GMI, the representative group for most of the horticultural peat and growing media producers in Ireland and the wider horticultural sector, I thank the Chair and the members of the committee for the invitation to speak. On behalf of the horticultural sector, I express our gratitude to the committee for the interest it has taken in this issue and for again giving us the opportunity to discuss the ongoing crisis in the horticultural sector due to restrictions on horticultural peat harvesting. The proactive attitude of this committee is in stark contrast to that of the three Departments with responsibility for horticulture and peatlands, namely, the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Environment, Climate and Communications and Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The attention this committee gave this issue during three meetings last year was a game-changer. It prompted the Government's response, the flurry of ministerial announcements between September 2021 and January 2022, media coverage of the importation of horticultural peat into Ireland and the publication of a Seanad Bill by Senators Doherty and Gallagher. Since January, however, the Government has been inactive on this issue, despite the risks posed to the environment, the economy and employment.

The background to this matter is well known. Following a court ruling in September 2019, harvesting of horticultural peat from bogs larger than 30 ha required a complex, multistage licensing and planning regime, unlike the single-stage systems in other EU states. As a result, horticultural peat harvesting has all but ceased and Irish peat supplies are all but exhausted. Despite significant research into alternatives, by GMI members and others, none can replace horticultural peat in appropriate quality, quantity or cost. This has left the industry with only one solution, namely, to import peat. The programme for Government commits to expanding, supporting and growing the horticultural sector, but this is impossible without first addressing the horticultural peat crisis.

When we were last here, we warned that Ireland would be reliant on imported peat of inferior quality, uncertain supply and negative environmental consequences if action was not taken. This has been realised and horticultural growers now depend on imported peat. Several large shipments of peat for horticulture have been imported from the Baltic states over the past year. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has made this already vulnerable supply of peat even more unstable. All shipments from Russia and Belarus have ceased and shipping costs from the Baltic states have increased by up to 300%. These additional costs have now been passed on to growers and, in turn, to consumers, which is adding to the food inflation the public is experiencing.

Turning to the impact of this situation, the crisis in the horticultural peat sector has impacted the environment, employment and the economy. Environmentally, importing peat has resulted in higher carbon emissions. Each shipment requires 200 trucks to load a vessel that then travels up to 3,000 km by sea before discharging its cargo into another 200 trucks to bring the peat to its destination. The emissions generated from harvesting horticultural peat domestically are small in comparison. Of Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions, only 0.15% are emitted from horticultural peat. The horticultural industry in Ireland employs over 17,000 people, 6,600 directly and 11,000 indirectly. These jobs are increasingly at risk and such job losses will significantly affect the livelihoods of those working in the sector. The industry had a farm gate value of €469 million in 2020, according to the Department. The increasing costs and uncertainty of supply will have devastating consequences, with businesses being forced to leave Ireland.

During a meeting with this committee in March, Niamh Brennan, horticulture policy executive of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, mentioned that there had been a significant reduction in the number of growers in the horticultural sector and that it was threatened with losing its core mass. There will be no point then in debating policies on how to expand the sector. GMI is disappointed that Government action has been reactive. Despite promises of reform, not a single operator has managed to get planning permission or a licence since 2019, while the clear recommendations in the reports produced have been ignored. Our group was a member of the working group on the use of peat moss in the horticultural industry, chaired by Dr. Munoo Prasad. The working group comprised representatives from the relevant Departments, State agencies, environmental NGOs and the horticultural sector. It made several recommendations, including: phasing out horticultural peat by 2030, after a transition period; passing legislation to remove the dual consent licensing system; and introducing a single consent system, as is the case in other European countries. Despite its expert status, the recommendations of the working group's report have been ignored.

In January 2022, the three Departments with responsibility in this area, namely, the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Environment, Climate and Communications, published a working paper containing quotes by six Ministers that outlined a series of actions, including: a review of the current stocks of peat available; publication of advice on peat extraction for sub-30 ha bogs; and continued research into alternative growing media. Even these actions have failed to be delivered nine months later, leaving the industry without any Government guidance.

GMI has welcomed other Government actions when they have been announced, including KPMG’s report on the future of the horticultural industry, even if these were announced in response to this committee’s meetings, media coverage of horticultural peat importation or the publication of a Seanad Bill. We are, however, disappointed that the KPMG report was published the day before the Dáil's summer recess in July, because its recommendations were not what the Departments wanted to hear. KPMG recommended the urgent need to develop viable mechanisms to sustainably use domestic peat supplies in horticulture, especially in the context of geopolitical events. The Department, despite having commissioned this report, has taken no steps to act on this recommendation.

Regarding a solution to this situation, GMI has called for the three Departments to create a comprehensive, long-term strategy for the transition away from horticultural peat, with practical solutions that support the sector and acknowledge that a just transition is required. In line with the KPMG report, GMI is now calling on the Government, as an absolute priority, to develop viable mechanisms to sustainably use domestic peat supplies in the short-term. We recommend two steps be taken to ensure there will be a sufficient supply of Irish horticultural peat to the market. First, sub-30 ha peatlands must be treated as individual bogs and not be aggregated with other areas in the same ownership. This would allow county councils to grant section 5 exemptions. Second, where an already existing bog production site exceeds 30 ha, a sub-30 ha area should be permitted for harvesting horticultural peat, provided the remainder of the area is appropriately isolated and set aside for rehabilitation and restoration or another environmentally acceptable activity.

This approach would mean there would be no need for opening any new bogs. The areas to which I refer would be sufficient to supply the Irish horticultural market. This solution requires just an estimated 1,500 ha, less than 0.1% of Irish peatlands, to provide the Irish horticultural sector with the vital supplies it requires. This solution would also result in limited greenhouse gas emissions, only 0.15% of Ireland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions. The long-term result will be no large-scale horticultural peat harvesting in Ireland.

I again thank the Chair and the committee for the invitation to appear. The crisis in this horticultural sector has not gone away, and, without appropriate Government action, we will lose our indigenous Irish horticultural sector.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Neenan and call Ms McManus.

Ms Orla McManus

I thank the Chair and the committee on behalf of CMP Co-operative Society Limited and the wider edible horticultural sector for the invitation to speak.

I am CEO of CMP, which represents mushroom producer members. Currently, horticultural peat is a key input material for our industry, as the committee knows. I am joined by Mr. Mel O’Rourke, specialist adviser to CMP, who was interim CEO before my appointment. On behalf of the edible horticultural sector, I express our gratitude to the committee members for having us here today to discuss peat in Ireland and for giving us the opportunity to discuss the substantial risk to the edible horticulture sector due to restrictions on horticultural peat harvesting.

As an industry, we need peat as a raw material. At present, Irish peat is not compliant. Ireland is a global leader in mushroom production and we wish to be compliant in all areas. However, the legislation needs to be changed to allow this to happen. Further investment in the Irish mushroom industry will not and cannot take place if locally harvested peat is no longer available in the short to medium term. This is not in keeping with Ireland’s Food Vision 2030 or Ireland’s view of food security. We believe the power to change legislation and to regulate lies here, and that is all we need to secure the future of edible horticulture in Ireland.

Our industry represents total production of mushrooms of 68,000 tonnes per annum, on 2021 figures, a retail value of €160 million per annum and an export market of 85%, or 56,000 tonnes, of Irish mushrooms to the UK market. As a result of the High Court ruling in 2019, harvesting of horticultural peat now requires a complex licensing and planning regime versus the single-stage systems in competitor EU states. This has caused horticultural peat harvesting to stop and Irish peat supplies are now all but exhausted. Despite significant research into alternatives, there are no current commercially available and environmentally sustainable alternatives that can replace horticultural peat immediately, in either quality or quantity. This has left us with only one short-term solution, which is to import peat. This bears additional costs that are passed on to growers and then to consumers, adding to the food inflation that the public are experiencing, as well as making growers less viable in a sector where input costs are already through the roof. This can cause a reduction in demand for mushrooms as part of the consumer’s basket of food staples.

We would highlight that the Irish mushroom industry requires an insignificant amount of peat, from an area of less than 15 ha per annum, for us to maintain Irish mushroom production at the current level, a level that brings in €160 million per annum at retail value. Irish peat has unique properties that are crucial to the Irish mushroom success story, so while the volume we require as an industry is low, Irish peat has characteristics, in regard to its water holding capability and biologically, that form one of the foundation stones of the Irish industry. This has been crucial to our success.

The mushroom sector uses a fraction of the total of harvested peat in Ireland. Using 2019 numbers, the mushroom industry represented only 0.5% of all peat extracted on the island. We ask that legislation allows for the industry to become compliant in the sustainable extraction of the 15 hectares required per annum to service our industry as we make the transition to peat-free. CMP, as a producer organisation fully supported by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, is innovating in the space of a full peat replacement. We have invested millions from industry and we have a lot of support from the Department to develop a sustainable alternative. We are engaging experts in the industry and synergising the expertise of growers, scientists, composters and other stakeholders to develop a sustainable and environmentally acceptable replacement for peat, alongside reducing waste in our industry and mitigating and adapting to the climate change challenge.

In the medium term, that is, the next three to five years, we anticipate reducing the volume of peat required in the mushroom industry by 50% to produce CMP member mushrooms. This will be achieved with a sustainable peat-free alternative, which is still going through research and development. However, this is heavily reliant on investment and Government support. In the first three years of getting our mushrooms from peat-free alternatives, it will cost some €19 million and we have already communicated that to the Department. We aim to have a full peat replacement by 2030 for all CMP member producers, again, heavily dependent on Government support and industry investment.

In line with the working group report on the use of peat moss in the horticultural industry and the KPMG report, CMP is calling on the Government, as an absolute priority, to develop viable mechanisms to sustainably use domestic peat supplies in the short term. There is a real prospect of terminal decline in Irish mushroom production due to current Government policy, which is increasing the cost base further and means we cannot compete against other countries, with Poland a real threat at present.

The crisis in the horticultural peat sector has impacts on our environment, as Mr. Neenan said. These ships bringing in peat need to travel 3,000 km and there are also lorries at the other end to deliver that product. The emissions generated from domestically harvesting peat are 0.15% of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions so there is no argument in that regard. On employment, the horticultural industry employs over 17,000 people in Ireland and 3,500 in the mushroom industry alone. These jobs are increasingly at risk and job losses, particularly in rural areas, will significantly affect the livelihoods of those working in the sector. As mentioned, there is already a decline in the number of growers and production units, and the threat of rising input costs due to imported peat and possible peat alternatives threatens to put growers out of business, especially those in rural areas. With regard to the economy, the horticulture industry has a farm gate value of €469 million on 2020 figures, with €124 million of this being the farm gate value of mushrooms alone, and with an export value of €160 million in 2021. The increasing costs and uncertainty of supply will have devastating consequences, with businesses being forced to close in Ireland.

CMP was represented by Mel O’Rourke, an industry expert, on the working group on the use of peat moss in the horticultural industry. The working group comprised representatives from the relevant Government Departments, State bodies, environmental NGOs and the horticultural sector. It made several recommendations, as follows: horticultural peat should be phased out by 2030, after a transition period; legislation should be passed to remove the dual consent licensing system; and a single consent system should be introduced, as is the case in other European countries. Despite its expert status, the working group’s recommendations have been ignored, as Mr. Neenan said. Despite promises of reform from the Government, not a single operator has managed to get either planning permission or a licence since 2019. It is clear that the recommendations in the working group report and the KPMG report have been ignored.

In January 2022, the three Departments with responsibility for the area, the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Environment, Climate and Communications, and Housing, Local Government and Heritage, published a working paper outlining a series of actions to be taken, including a review of the current stocks of peat available, publication of advice on peat extraction for sub-30 ha bogs, and continued research into alternative growing media. All of these actions have failed to be delivered, leaving the industry without any Government guidance. We have called for the three Departments to create a comprehensive, short-to-medium term strategy for the transition away from horticultural peat, with practical solutions that support the sector and financial supports as we transition to peat-free.

We recommend the following immediate action to support the mushroom and edible horticulture industry. We recommend that a legislative framework be put in place to bring certainty for the provision of local peat to sustain production of edible horticulture. To avoid an imminent crisis in the mushroom and field horticulture sectors, this needs to be achieved as a matter of urgency. As Mr. Neenan said, we ask the Government to consider the following measures: treating sub-30 ha peatland as individual bogs, not aggregating them; and where an already existing bog production site exceeds 30 ha, a sub-30 ha area could be permitted for harvesting horticultural peat, provided the remainder of the area is appropriately isolated and set aside for restoration. There will be no need for opening any new bogs from the areas described as there are sufficient areas available to supply the Irish horticultural sector as a whole.

This solution would require just 1,500 ha of bog, less than 0.1% of Irish peatlands. As said before, the mushroom industry needs only 15 ha of the 1,500 ha. The long-term result would be no large-scale horticultural peat harvesting in Ireland.

I thank the members for listening to me. On behalf of CMP members, I thank the Chair and members for their invitation to me to appear before them. The crisis in the sector has not gone away. Without urgent action, our industry, the Irish mushroom industry, for which we, as global leaders, have so many reasons to be proud, will suffer and diminish.

Our producer organisation, supported by the Department, wants its members to be the most sustainable mushroom producers in Europe. We are confident we will move away from peat by the end of our new operating programme, which is by 2030; however, we need the legislative framework to allow the harvesting of Irish peat to eliminate the short- and medium-term risks as we make the transition.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I welcome the witnesses. I have worked in horticulture myself. I have worked in amenity horticulture, nursery stock production, forestry and the mushroom sector. I also worked in the tomato and soft-fruit sectors. Therefore, I am fully aware of and knowledgeable about the significance and importance of growing media. I am particularly knowledgeable about peat. There is a common thread in all the presentations today, which is not a surprise. There is a clear, strong message. The real takeaway from what has been said, from what I know myself and from the inquiries of this committee is that the advice of the working group on the use of peat moss in the horticulture industry, to the effect that horticultural peat should be phased out by 2030 and that legislation should be passed to remove the dual-consent scheme, has been ignored. That is what the delegates are telling us and what we know. The Department commissioned KPMG to produce a report on the future of the horticulture industry. It recommended the urgent development of viable mechanisms to sustainably use domestic peat supplies in horticulture. That has also been ignored. We do not need to get into this in any great detail because the fact is that we are back at the table of this joint committee, and we know the significance of it. I have been to Monaghan Mushrooms and other mushroom-production operations and I am fiercely proud of the sector. Visiting is an eye-opener. I recommend that everyone go to some of the major mushroom producers. That mushrooms can be picked and on the shelves in London and France within days must be noted. What a great story about the green island of Ireland and the potential for horticulture, salad crops and other crops. We could have far greater potential in the agrifood sector if we got this one right. Therefore, I am somewhat disappointed about the current circumstances.

I have another point to make before asking a few questions. It is worth making. At the end of last year, the Tánaiste said he wished to put on the record the fact that there was no viable alternative to peat for the horticulture sector and that the Government needed to find a solution to the issue. I say that to the members of our tripartite coalition who are present. The Tánaiste will be Taoiseach in a few months so we need to hold them to his statement. I am somewhat hopeful about this. We really should be honed in politically. The delegates represent their own communities, economies and local jobs. My message to them is to get really political about this matter because there has been no action. There is a sort of silo of communications.

It is sheer madness and hypocritical to ban the harvesting of peat in Ireland while importing it from other EU and third countries. We have a business that is being challenged and undermined, yet we are allowing the importation from other EU countries and third countries. That is crazy and is mad policy. I would like to think the Tánaiste will be taking that on board.

Can the delegates explain two things to me? Why do they believe we are now in this scenario? Why do they believe the political system is failing or that they are not galvanising or getting sufficient support? I would like them to think about that and then give me an answer.

A strong aspect of the delegates' argument is that producers, such as CMP, are in an innovation space and looking at alternatives. It will take time. It is highly unlikely that we will have anything before 2030, although it might happen. The year 2030 is not that far away, however. Therefore, we have the short-term, medium-term and long-term. In the short term, we have just got to get more milled peat out. That is a demand. Could the delegates touch on this? An important message that might not have been circulated is that advances are being made in terms of alternatives.

It is also important that we emphasise again the number of people involved in and employed in Irish horticulture. There are over 17,000 people working in the industry. The delegates say 6,600 of these are employed directly and that 11,000 are employed indirectly. There are also spin-offs from this. That is a really strong argument. Again, it comes back to communities, particularly our viable and sustainable rural communities. I believe everyone in this room is committed to the cause of the delegates. I do not doubt that for one minute. The members of this committee of all parties and none are as frustrated as others. That is what I genuinely believe, but I think that members of this committee, as Oireachtas Members, need some more information and facts to strengthen the economic argument and assist the producers in this argument.

I will leave it at that because I am conscious that other members want to contribute. The more information the delegates can give us, the better. They should get political and motivate their communities. If they want the jobs to be sustained, they will have to crank up the pressure on their communities and elected representatives.

With regard to the employment challenges and the potential loss of jobs, could the delegates touch on the matter? If the problem is not resolved in the short term, how will it impact on the delegates' businesses and, more important, on employment in the communities they work in and represent?

Mr. Kieran Dunne

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to contribute. All our issues are similar to those of the speakers from GMI and CMP. On my notes, I have written the question, "Why have we not made progress in the past two years?". Senator Boyhan asked why we do not get political. We have, right throughout the country. I am speaking on behalf of Kildare Growers Group, whose members have been working together for the past 36 years. We comprise one of the most successful groups in Europe at this point. Over the past two years, we have been open, honest and committed and we have brought our experience to the table. We have been willing to engage and work with everybody to try to resolve the problem. We worked with all stakeholders to try to resolve the difficult position in which we find ourselves. It seems that all of our efforts have been in vain. Regardless of where we went and what we tried to do, we met a brick wall. We are not looking for any handouts but demanding that fair play and common sense prevail.

Why is it that two reports on peat are sitting on shelves and have been completely ignored over the past nine months, with no competent plan of action or timeline put in place? If I ran my business in this way, I would not be sitting in front of members today; I would be out of business. We now find ourselves in a much more difficult place than when we started on this journey. The action plan proposed by the Government following the publication of the reports is pathetic, useless and unworkable.

The action plan could have been written in playschool. The Department did not engage with our industry to draft that working plan. It beggars belief that this is the best that the Government can come up with in response to a crisis in the horticultural industry. At the end of my comments I will give the Senator the reason. Similar to the mushroom industry or any other horticultural industry to us within the amenity sector, that cost is the cost of peat and now we are being forced to buy inferior quality at hugely inflated prices.

I will tell members two other facts. This week I have been forced to buy from a Scottish company while large trucks that may not be owned by Bord na Móna are driving by my gate delivering thousands of tonnes per week to the Edenderry power plant. These are facts. It is fuel peat but how can that happen while we cannot get horticultural grade peat? The availability and cost of fertiliser will continue to cause major problems over the next 12 months. We all know about the power supply and the cost of electricity. Our packaging and pots have gone up by 30%. The cost of labour, when we can get it, has also gone up.

There is a good news story in my rural community. I hired a 19-year-old guy this week on a full-time basis. I hired an engineer before the pandemic until he is ready to move on and he is still with me, getting paid good money. He is a fully qualified college certified engineer. There is huge competition from all over Europe such as from our Dutch colleagues. The market in Eastern Bloc countries is not as good as it was, so they will dump product on Ireland, England or wherever they can get a market. The Government is playing lip service to the horticultural industry, which we find incredibly insulting. We are people who work hard in rural communities. It is no different from dairy farming. We must work day and night to cover our crop seven days a week. We are worth millions of euro to the Exchequer. We employ large numbers in rural communities, which we are proud of, as well as providing a stunning stock of Irish grown plants. I reiterate that we have stunning material the context of nursery stock and plants, both vegetable and amenity, in rural communities supplying towns, villages, cities and markets throughout the country. We are as green as can be. We do not burn peat. The trucks that pass by my gate carry peat that is going to be burned. The truckload of peat that comes into my nursery is to grow plants for gardens, estates and to beautify towns and cities. We deserve better. We expect and demand better. If the Government does not take urgent, immediate action, honest and fair, our industry faces real problems. As other speakers said, we need a template, an action plan and a timeline for harvesting of sub 30 ha.

We also need strong, committed leadership from the Government to resolve this incompetent mess. I will go back to the Senator and tell him why. With hand on heart I can say that I am disgusted that there is nobody here from the Departments responsible to answer our questions. We at Kildare Growers Group have no confidence in the Ministers, Deputies Noonan, Hackett and Ryan, to resolve this situation any time soon. Their poor performance over the past 18 months has been pathetic. They do not listen and do not want to listen. They are following their own agenda, namely that we all buy into the environment. We are a green industry. I love the environment. I live in a rural community and I appreciate and protect the environment. However, they do not listen and they have done sweet damn all to help our industry.

We will not get answers today. The committee is, and has been, fully committed to our industry but when the Ministers will not turn up to answer questions here, what hope have we of getting them to answer our questions?

I am passionate about what we do. We are successful at what we do. However we cannot take any more.

Chairman

That was a comprehensive answer for Senator Boyhan.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Would someone else like to contribute?

Mr. Paddy Gleeson

I have been involved with the amenity sector almost since its inception 40 or 50 years ago when the industry was small. It has grown into a substantial business employing quite a substantial workforce, as has been outlined by other speakers. The total employment across the horticultural sector is approximately 17,000 people. It is sad to see an industry that employs so many people and is so valuable considering the volume of peat that is being used. The horticultural industry for amenity, soft root and vegetables uses 131,000 m3 of peat compared with the Netherlands, which uses in excess of 4 million m3 of peat which is all imported. The industry is worth €6.6 billion in the Netherlands. The volume of peat we use means our impact is minimal. As has been stated many times, the volume used for horticulture in Ireland is 0.12% of the total Irish peat lands. Historically, before the 2019 legislation 90% of the peat extracted was for energy use. The remaining 10% was for horticultural use. As Mr. Dunne stated, peat is still being transported from two Kildare bogs to an energy station close by.

Looking at the research and at the future, the nursery industry is environmentally conscious in respect of the impact of the carbon footprint and climate change and so on. It is looking at all options and reducing additives by approximately 30% at the present time. Research was carried out in the Netherlands and published recently by the Thünen Institute entitled, Peat Replacement in horticultural growing media: Availability of bio-based alternative materials, working paper No.190/2022. That research found that by volume for professional horticulture the maximum percentage of alternatives in peat compost for wood fibres is 40%; 50% for composted bark; 40% for green compost and 100% for coir pith. The current research states that we are a bit away yet from going much further than those percentages outlined. Hopefully, the €1.7 million that was allocated to Teagasc for research will prove fruitful in the long term but it will take time. If we look at what is happening in the UK, peat use has been extended for retail to 2024 and for commercial horticulture to 2028. The National Farmers' Union, NFU, which represents the British horticultural sector, has stated that it is not confident that there will be alternatives for peat by the end of the decade. It recommends that exemptions be made for commercial horticulture.

I will make one other point on the problems. In recent times, I have spoken to a number of nursery people who are very frustrated. I spoke to one person last week who told me that the peat being supplied is of inferior quality compared with what was previously supplied because it is coming from smaller units. There is a lot of debris, timber and other alternatives in the compost. It is nowhere near the quality of what was supplied by Bord na Móna and others previously. Not only does the nursery industry have problems in acquiring peat, but it also has a problem growing with the compost available at the moment. Someone needs to move fast and sort out this problem otherwise a rural industry employing large numbers of people in rural parts of Ireland will leave the industry. It will be a sad day if a nursery stock industry vanishes from the face of the earth. That is what will happen if action is not taken urgently.

Deputy Michael Collins

I welcome the witnesses. I share their disappointment with the three Departments involved, the Departments of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Environment, Climate and Communications, and Agriculture, Food and Marine.

Chairman

I wish to make clear that only one has refused. Officials from the other Departments will be here in two weeks' time.

Deputy Michael Collins

Sadly, one has refused. It might have cleared up a few matters today. It might have put in a foundation to save these horticulture jobs, which are vital in rural communities. That may be why those officials are not here today. It might have its own meaning.

I will lay out all my questions because different witnesses may want to answer them. From what I can gather, there are major problems in the horticulture sector with dual media, the peat in the soil, this season. Even with 30% peat in growing media, growing of plants is very poor and the grower and consumer are getting much poorer products. It will put growers out of business next season. Will the Government restart limited harvesting in order to give a transition period to allow compost makers to create a product for growers? Will growers get any support from experts in finding ways to get solutions using the new peat-free media? From what I can gather, it is not working for growers at all.

Is any peat still being exported from Ireland? This is Irish peat for Irish growers from bogs that can never be repaired. In the budget why did the Government not pull a grant to landowners of bogs to block drains when those bogs cannot be used by horticulture but somehow are allowed to sit emitting greenhouse gases?

Ms Orla McManus

I will take that because it touches on Senator Boyhan's question on research and development. The only reason we have been able to do this research and development is because we felt our hand was forced. We want to be sustainable mushroom producers and the retailers also want it. We need to get there by 2030. We have had to use our own industry investment, taking growers' money altogether. We have now managed to get the Department on board but our only means of investment is via the producer organisation scheme. We have not been able to avail of any other pot of money. We would really appreciate Government support on that.

Transitioning to being peat free by 2030 will cost us €19 million. That is not from processing this new substrate but from lost yield by using it until we reach an optimal blueprint and also from the input costs of the materials in the processes we need to do. That is €19 million over five years. I am only speaking on behalf of our members, but there is the whole Irish mushroom industry. That deals with research and development.

Senator Boyhan also asked why it is not happening. I am pretty new to these discussions on peat harvesting. As the Senator said, all I can see are siloed Departments. It is necessary to go to three Departments in order to try to get a licence. These people have been trying since 2010 or 2011. They need to go through the courts. That does not add up. Something is fundamentally wrong in the system. Surely it is about getting the right people in the room and making it happen.

Mr. John Neenan

Senator Boyhan and Deputy Michael Collins both asked about the issues with the alternatives. My colleague Mr. Mahon from Klasmann-Deilmann has good experience of what is happening on the ground.

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Our company has been producing its own compost and wood fibre since 1991. In Ireland, we have been using bark and wood fibre since about 2004. We have been making our own wood fibre on site since 2013. I acknowledge what Deputy Michael Collins said that there are challenges when using these alternative materials. That is why peat moss has been the material of choice since the 1960s. The qualities of peat moss are that it has very good water-holding capacity and nutrient buffering. When these alternatives are introduced, they do not hold the water and nutrients as well. Typically, it is necessary to water at least 30% more and use about one third more fertiliser because there is more leaching. There are negative environmental consequences to diluting these alternatives.

The more immediate problem we have with the alternatives if no peat is available is that the alternatives are equally becoming unavailable. For example, for our wood fibre production we require wood chips which is a residue from the sawmills. Back in July we were getting ten loads a week from our main supplier. This has been reduced to two loads per week because of the energy requirements for making wood pellets for fuel for heating. Also because of the downturn in the construction industry, less wood is being processed meaning that less residual material is available.

Even before this, there was not sufficient bark to replace all the peat required in the country. In addition, as Mr. Gleeson said, none of these alternatives, with the possible exception of coir, can be used 100%. These alternatives can only be used when diluted with something else. The only other thing we really have in any volume is peat moss.

People talk about green compost. There are big problems with consistency in green compost. It is not possible to rely on the sourcing of it. It contains contaminants which can be glass, faeces, needles, plastics and all sorts unless the source material is very well controlled. Some 40% of our product goes into food production. That is a major problem for us. The other advantage for peat is that growers are dealing with a virgin product that has not had any animals grazing on it and has not had any litter. The green waste is collected from municipal sites and, of course, this will include whatever debris is left in these municipal sites.

The other issue is cost. The price of wood chip and bark is linked to the cost of energy. Yesterday the Irish Farmers' Journal or Agriland - I cannot remember which - reported that Bord na Móna announced that it needs 1 million tonnes of biomass to fuel the power station in Edenderry. Where will it get that? It will be burning the same wood chips and bark that we want to supply people like Mr. Kieran Dunne and the Kildare growers. While we can go toe to toe with the energy industry to compete and buy the material, ultimately, energy is a more profitable business than horticulture.

The whole industry will come out as a loser in this battle. Coir is an excellent product that we bring in from India and Sri Lanka and is horrendously expensive. It is a residual of the coconut industry. Coconuts are primarily produced for their oil and flesh. The coir we use is the husk. As coconut oil is now considered in the same category as palm oil, unfortunately coir can be detrimental if it is not sustainably harvested. Palm oil has a bad name but unfortunately we are losing another excellent product because we now have customers asking for products that are not just peat-free but also coir-free. It is a practical impossibility, without coir and peat, to produce a good quality growing media.

The other issue with the alternatives is that peat has a very low pH so it is suitable for any sort of crop. The right amount of lime can be added so it is suitable for ericaceous crops and heathers which have low pH requirements. All these alternatives start off with a high pH and there are certain crops that are not suitable for growing in them. Heathers will not grow very well in a 100% coir-mix because the pH is too high. That is probably enough said about alternatives unless there are any other questions.

Mr. John Neenan

Deputy Collins raised a question about exports and I am delighted it has been raised. Over the past months and year, there has been misinformation. Figures, although not the details, have been quoted incorrectly. I will ask my colleague, James Spillane, to elaborate on that and explain how the figures are misleading.

Mr. James Spillane

I will round off some of the points. To answer the Deputy's question, it is likely that Ireland will become a net importer of peat. If we have not already reached that point, we certainly will in the very near future. This is to support the mushroom industry, specialist growers and growers that cannot at this point grow without some peat. It is something of an inevitability at the moment. As Mr. Neenan said, statistics have been cited in the House, in the media and online with regard to peat exports, all of which are inaccurate unfortunately. The figures are gathered by the Central Statistics Office, CSO, from Customs and Excise under a code, namely, peat and the agglomorates. Agglomorates are all the materials to which Mr. Mahon referred, including wood fibre, bark fines, fertiliser and a whole raft of other ingredients such as coir and pomace, which are blended to reduce the amount of peat being used. As an industry, we are trying immensely hard to find and use alternatives and the materials are being referred to as though everything is peat. The code the CSO provides is peat and agglomorates, which includes peat and alternatives. The fact of the matter is that less and less peat is being exported every day. Practically none is being exported at this stage. While Bord na Móna has acknowledged it exported peat for a period, it is no longer doing so but that is included in the statistics. The agglomorates situation shows numbers that are inaccurate. There is an element of North-South exports as well. We take some peat North and South and process it for growers specifically. By and large, the quantities are becoming irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Deputy Matt Carthy

With the Chair's indulgence, I will have a bit of a rant. We are in danger of this committee becoming a glorified group therapy support forum in that members are listening to problems we have heard many times and to concerns we all share, while the people and Departments that can assist in resolving those concerns are refusing to engage. It is absolutely scandalous. I stand to be corrected but in my reckoning representatives of the horticultural and mushroom sectors have told this committee on six different occasions that they are facing an existential crisis. They have told us there is no credible current alternative to the use of peat in their sectors. It is important to note that this evidence has never been challenged in any of the deliberations the committee has had. Nobody has given oral or written evidence to this committee suggesting there is a current credible alternative to horticultural peat.

We have been repeatedly told that the likely outcome of the industry being unable to access cultivated peat domestically is that we will lose aspects of the horticultural mushroom sectors, as they close down and their products are produced elsewhere, or we will see growing peat imports. This is the scenario that is currently evolving and it is the exact opposite of environmentalism. In fact, it is tokenism at its worst.

Earlier today, I read through some of the committee's reports and the transcripts of previous meetings. Since this committee started deliberating on this matter, it is fair to say we have encountered obstruction and obstacles at every turn. This is not the first time Departments have refused to come to talk to us on this issue. Throughout this process, three Departments have essential been in hiding. We held hearings on the matter and produced a report on which the Government then refused to engage with us. Instead it established a working group and refused to engage with us throughout the time the group sat, arguing that it had to wait until the report was finished. The working group produced a report which the Government refused to share for some time, all the while saying it would not engage with the committee until the report had been published. When the report was published the Government then simply ignored it. In a stroke of genius, somebody in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, probably aided and abetted by somebody in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, managed to place the onus on the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which does not have any power to propose the legislative changes the commissioned reports indicated were necessary. What we got instead was a pathetic working paper that completely ignored the recommendations of the reports produced by this committee and the Government's working group. The only measurable thing that it could be said the Government achieved was to put an onus on Bord na Móna to provide access to its stocks of horticultural peat. Representatives of Bord na Móna then appeared before the committee and told us it had signed an exclusive deal with an Israeli company, basically making its stockpiles inaccessible to the producers. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine then proceeded to commission a KPMG report on opportunities for the Irish horticulture sector. I do not know how much that cost but, guess what, it made exactly the same recommendations as the working group report and the committee's report. Since then, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, which I understand is the only Department that could bring forward the legislative change that is required, has refused to meet the committee. Its officials have sent us an email basically stating that this is a matter for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The latter has stated it will meet us, but not just yet, maybe at the end of the month. Last night, a Minister of State and, by my count, ten officials from that Department appeared before this committee to discuss legislation it is trying to push through, even though it does not know what the Bill will say when it is passed. If the Department decided this was a priority, it could definitely deal with it.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is being treated like a mudguard and I am shocked that the Minister is accepting that. I noted Mr. Dunne cited the Ministers of State, Senator Hackett and Deputy Noonan, and the Minister, Deputy Ryan, and there is nothing he said about any of them that I disagree with. However, Mr. Dunne missed a key component in all of those because I genuinely believe the only way this issue will be resolved is if the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, takes the mantle that has been handed to him by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to say this a matter for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and insists his Department bring forward legislation that is in line with the recommendations of all three reports, namely, to provide a mechanism whereby peat can be temporarily cultivated for the exclusive use of the domestic horticulture and mushroom sectors until such stage as a credible alternative is in place. It is in that vein that I will be proposing that this committee invite the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, to come to our meeting alongside his officials. Otherwise, we will keep going around in circles. We will have these people or their colleagues coming before us in a number of months' time and they all will tell us the problem is getting worse, they are importing more, the costs are going up and it is starting to have an impact on sectors.

As I have said on many occasions on this committee, if there was an alternative to horticultural peat, I would be telling our guests to sling their hooks because we must try to protect our bogs, but there is nothing protecting the environment or reducing emissions when we are importing substantial amounts of peat from places where we have no eye whatsoever on what type of regulations are in place. We are importing peat over thousands of miles, with hundreds of trucks transporting it right across the Continent of Europe, onto ships and into Ireland. It is lunacy. As I say, it is counterproductive.

I had a number of questions to ask our guests. They probably have answered most of them or, if they have not, we have heard the answers before because we know what the solution is. To do what I am supposed to do and ask a question, I will ask the following.

Chairman

There is no point in Deputy Carthy breaking a habit.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I genuinely think this is a very serious matter. As I said to the Chair on countless occasions, my primary reason for having an interest in this matter is because the mushroom sector in particular has provided a lifeline to a part of my constituency that had virtually no other economic activity and had become a world leader in that sector. It is not without its faults. Nobody is suggesting it is, no more than any other sector. It is crucially important to the local economy and we will lose it, potentially, for nothing. There will be no good for the environment. There will be no good for anything bar whatever is the esteem of some people at south Dublin dinner parties to be able to say they have done something where, in effect, they have done nothing in real terms. What interactions have the witnesses had with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in respect of the legislative framework? Do they feel that there is a mechanism within that Department considering that is where everybody else has decided to lay the burden of responsibility? Do they have a view as to whether or not that Department has the capacity and the power to bring forward proposals that would resolve the issues that we have heard? I will leave it at that.

Mr. John Neenan

We have had maybe three meetings with the officials of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I have to say the people we spoke to are very committed and working very hard on trying to find a solution. Their solution is the problem. The working paper that was prepared and submitted and which people have referred to, at the end of paragraph 6, states:

Finally, it is accepted across Government that a level of peat extraction is required for the domestic horticulture sector ... Furthermore, it is accepted by Government that the fastest route to compliance lies in small scale bogs of less than 30 hectare bogs and this pathway has been successfully tested on other small-scale bogs in the recent past.

That was based on completely wrong and misleading information.

When we were having discussions in the working group, we were told by people in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage that the sub-30 ha route section 5 exemptions were granted. Eventually, we discovered there were three section 5 exemptions granted, two in Roscommon and one in Westmeath, and they were based on removing turf cutting from special areas of conservation, SACs, and relocating them. Deputy Fitzmaurice would have played a good part in doing that and the people are very grateful. The other six applications that went in to the local authorities, Meath, Longford and Westmeath, were all referred to An Bord Pleanála and An Bord Pleanála ruled that all of them required planning. That is the problem with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It thought it had the solution based on information that was not correct and now it does not know what to do. Those are the facts.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

First of all, I thank the witnesses for coming in. I have a few questions. In my opinion, there is a cult in media that does not understand what we are talking about. It was interesting to hear Mr. Neenan. I would know a good bit about bogs and I learned from him there. Did Growing Media Ireland respond to thejournal.ie? I saw this investigative journalist telling us about everything that was exported. Did Growing Media Ireland write back to educate them on the different parts that make up this and that it is not all peat?

I spoke to Mr. O'Rourke earlier on. It needs to be explained to the ordinary Joe Soap who does not understand the requirements of horticulture peat, bedding peat or peat for mushrooms, and the different types of peat needed. There is black, there is white and there is brown. Does Mr. O'Rourke understand me? It is important the witnesses touch on that briefly.

Turning to Mr. Mahon, I have watched the newspapers closely. In fairness, Mr. Neenan spoke about where the section 5 exemptions were granted. We were trying to resolve an issue on designated bogs and trying to relocate people. Unfortunately, in Kildare, we had a bog that was objected to by the same people who are talking about us cutting within some of these designated bogs, and An Bord Pleanála refused it.

I would not agree with some speakers because I was at this at the beginning. At the time, it was the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Its job was about preserving bogs. It was not involved in the planning process. At the time, I remember Mr. Brian Lucas was put in a job in that Department. No one else would take it. It was a hot potato. That is being straight about it. The spade needs to be called on this. It is Ryan's section that should have it done. Agriculture has damn all to do with bogs, to be honest about it. It is well known that one night I asked a Topical Issue matter where there was a junior Minister responding, the issue of bogs came up, and it was said behind his back that it would not happen. I am calling it here that the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, is blocking this at present. There is no point in us messing about or talking nonsense. In the price of Government, bogs are one of the sacrifices at present unless people stand up now and are counted on this. They could decide to look after what the witnesses require. The percentage needed is small.

I read in the newspapers that Klasmann had got through the first and second sections and I thought this is looking good. Is it stalled at present? Each one of the witnesses can deal with it.

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. Mahon and Mr. Spillane can given their experience on that.

Mr. Kevin Mahon

In the case of Klasmann-Deilmann, it was misreported on local radio.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

The usual stuff.

Mr. Kevin Mahon

There was a misunderstanding of what happened. First of all, we applied for a licence in January 2014 and that was returned to us because we had to confirm whether we needed planning permission or could confirm we would get a letter to say we did not. That was all up in the air at the time through the courts.

Subsequently, we know that planning permission is now required.

When the January 2019 peat regulations were enacted, and then struck out in September 2019, we set about applying for relief for substitute consent for our bogs. We submitted those applications in June 2020. In recent months, An Bord Pleanála has granted permission to apply for permission for retrospective planning permission.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

It is substitute consent.

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Yes. It took more than two years for us to be granted the permission to apply for the permission for substitute consent.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Okay.

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Now, Friends of the Irish Environment, FIE, has sought a judicial review of the decision made by An Bord Pleanála. The board has granted us a one-year extension to our substitute consent application because it knows that is how long it is going to take for the judicial review to be heard. The relief for substitute consent is the easy part. It will be at least three years before we are in-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

2030 will nearly have landed.

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Yes. If we get substitute consent, then we can apply for planning permission. As it happens, half of our bog beside our factory is in Longford and half of it is in Westmeath. This means two planning applications will be required. One county council could grant permission and the other could refuse it. Part of our bog, therefore, could become inaccessible if we have to travel through one county to get to the other side of the bog.

If we get granted planning permission, which could be a two-year process, it will only be then that we can apply to the EPA for a licence. In 2019, Mr. Spillane and myself went to the DG Environment in Brussels to highlight the absurdity of the situation that we are caught in here. We were pointed straight back to Dublin and told this was not an EU stricture. There is a myth here that it is the EU that has done this. Both our companies have permissions to harvest peat in EU and non-EU countries, in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. It is only in Ireland that we have this uniquely absurd problem, that no one wants to sort out because it suits. This is death by stealth. This is what is happening here. The Deputy called it. It is the inaction that will collapse the industry and this is by design, because this triumvirate in government has made a pact and the price of it is the industry.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I have one question to put back to Mr. Mahon. I am fairly familiar with this subject. The EU is good at saying responsibility lies in Ireland, and I am not defending anyone here, above all things. I was over there as well, however, and I was told it was the member states that decide this, that and the other. The people in Brussels are good at telling us this. One directive is causing all these problems and that is the habitats directive. It has damned every port and every road. Everything we go at in Ireland now has problems caused by the habitats directive, which was originally signed into law by our current President. We have environmental impact assessments, EIAs, screening out and all the different palaver in this regard. This is giving an open door to the environmental lobby to bring people to court on every issue.

On the figures and the timelines Mr. Mahon has gone through, it means that before he even goes for the last round in the boxing ring in this regard some three years will have passed from now, and two more years can be added then. Decisions have to be made on this aspect. I ask the other witnesses to address my other questions. I ask Mr. Mahon to respond on the habitats directive because it is freezing forestry, roads and ports and coming back to young people building houses. The directive is the greatest damning thing that ever came into this country. Additionally, Mr. Mahon's company might be operating in other countries, but they might not have the same number of environmentalists who have decided to fly through Dublin airport, started living here and decided to challenge our regulations.

Mr. James Spillane

Regarding the question about the response to the journalists and the article on thejournal.ie, our organisation responded. The industry and other parties also responded-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Did it print it?

Mr. James Spillane

No. We got a reply thanking us for our information and saying that it would be taken into consideration on the next occasion, which clearly has not happened. We have attempted to engage in a positive way and to share information in the hope we could educate, but there appears to be absolutely no interest in this. The website seems to simply want to publish what it wants to publish.

Mr. Mel O'Rourke

The mushroom industry is a specialised one, as everyone here knows. We need deep-dug black peat that has not been allowed to dry out. This is one of the pillars of why the industry has been so successful. Regarding the number of hectares of peat that would support the Irish industry, we are probably only talking about a requirement for 15 ha per annum. There is-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I have one question. Is it 15 ha at a certain height? I ask this because there will be white peat on top, then brown peat and finally black peat be reached. In some bogs, it could be 1 m down and in others it could be 2 m down. It works, however. What I am trying to put together is whether one bit will work for horticulture and the other bit will suit the mushroom growers?

Mr. Mel O'Rourke

Okay. The top part is what we would call white peat, but perhaps the Deputy might call it brown peat.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

It is brus.

Mr. Mel O'Rourke

What comes underneath that is what is needed for the mushroom industry. Bogs can be 3 m, 4 m or 5 m deep. If we take it that we need 130,000 cu m, then it is easy enough to calculate how many hectares will be needed. This is all we need. There are 100,000 ha of stripped bogs in Ireland, and, returning to the Deputy's comment about the habitats directive, it is not possible to comply with planning permission or to get retrospective planning permission because it is not possible to comply with the habitats directive. End of story. We have been going around in circles. I participated in and contributed to the endeavours of the working group. We contributed to the KPMG report. We then waited for another report that was meant to be giving advice on the number of kilograms or tonnes of available peat.

We are now sitting back in here again two years later and we have achieved nothing. I think the phrase "death by stealth" was used. It is. It is death by a thousand cuts, or whatever, like the Romans did. This is where we are at. It is so frustrating regarding the people who can make the decisions. We have a Minister of State with responsibility for horticulture, and this is absurd, who will not grasp this nettle and deal with it. I challenge her to come in here and to justify what has been going on for the past two years.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I ask the witnesses to tell me about the two different planning types. My understanding is that if 30 ha are hydrologically separated, basically with a deep drain around the land as far as the lough, that would mean those hectares would come under different working arrangements than a situation where 30 ha of land is stuck onto a neighbour's holding of 20 ha or 30 ha, or more, like a high bog, to put it simply?

Mr. James Spillane

I might be able to give some clarity. Sub-thresholds, under 30 ha, only require a section 5. In this case, a holding will either be exempted or it will not. One can, therefore, decide whether to harvest.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Has anyone gone down this road?

Mr. James Spillane

Six people have done this.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

This was the under 30 ha path.

Mr. James Spillane

Yes, and all those applications have all been declined by An Bord Pleanála as requiring planning permission. As the industry sees it, there is no route in respect of the sub-threshold. Then there is the hydrological link-in. For example, if the Deputy owned perhaps 26 ha and I had the same size holding, and these were linked and adjacent by a river, then that is regarded as 52 ha. Once a parcel of land is over 50 ha, then there is a need for relief for consent, substitute consent, planning permission and a licence from the EPA.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Am I right in saying that the courts have ruled that if one person has 30 ha, another person has 60 ha and another individual has 40 ha beside it, that it is taken as a complex in one go?

Mr. James Spillane

As we understand it, this is the case if the land is on the same river basin, is commercially linked in some other way or for a whole host of other reasons. Broadly, though, the answer is "Yes". If parcels of land are on the same river basin, then they are hydrologically linked.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

We had to do a lot of this stuff in trying to show we were not having an adverse effect in the line of the habitats directive and all that. Had our guests hydrology and ecology reports? I heard a scientist saying once that a bog was like a paper bag and that if you filled it with water and put one hole in it, the whole bog was gone. It was the most wrong statement ever made. I saw scientists doing all the studies and depending on the type of bog, the type of turf that is in it, whether it is black turf, the permeability and otherwise, you can go from 150 m to 250 m and that is it. You are not going to damage the Earth over it. Have our guests done all of those types of studies to prove-----

Mr. James Spillane

It is current at the moment because it is before the Court of Appeal in the Harte case. It is being tested probably in greater detail than it has been at any time in the past. We are certainly going to get a better understanding of hydrological linking in the near future.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Okay. In fairness to everybody on the committee, most of us are living in the country and we understand it but there is a block there. I am not going to come in here and tell the organisations we know how to solve it. The only way it will be solved is to haul in one of the chiefs who did the programme for Government and tell them this cannot keep going the way it is because there are too many jobs at stake. That is me being honest with our guests. We cannot go promising the sun, moon and stars. We will highlight it but the problem going on here at the moment is there is not the will and the organisations need the legislation. I do not know if it is legislation exactly. The organisations are talking about one single consent. Are they saying that, no more than planning permission for a house, if you are beside an SAC or in it, you put in all the scientific evidence to show you will not do X, Y or Z and that the planning board then decides within three months? Is that what our guests are saying the system should be? I would not be touching the EPA, if it was me.

Mr. James Spillane

Unfortunately, above 50 ha falls within the EPA Act so it is not-----

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

God help ye if ye are.

Mr. James Spillane

-----optional but yes, to answer the first part, it would be good if we could have a single process. In a perfect world we would like one process to deal with this. To Mr. Mahon's point earlier on, both organisations work in many jurisdictions under many regimes without nearly as much complexity as Ireland. It is impossible in Ireland for an operator to comply and to work through the legislation.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Mr. Mahon might tell us what an operator has to do in some other country in Europe, compared with here.

Mr. Kevin Mahon

I am not an expert on other countries but all I know are the consents we have. Our company harvests peat in Germany, Latvia and Lithuania and we have been doing it for years without any issues. It is only in Ireland that there is this problem.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Okay. I thank the Chairman.

Deputy Martin Browne

I welcome our guests. I think Deputy Carthy said this might be the seventh time we have had the horticulture and mushroom industry before us. We can hear the frustration in our guests' voices, as well as in our own, that we are back here again talking about the same thing. I disagree somewhat with what the Chairman said to Deputy Michael Collins about the Ministers. The Minister with responsibiltiy for heritage refused to meet us today and we have also had the other Ministers refuse to come in. They remind me of children saying "I am not coming in unless the other two are coming in". They need to cop themselves on a small bit and come in so we can get this solved.

Has GMI made contact with the Minister's office on this overall issue or has he even made contact with the organisation? It seems that since the working group's report was issued he considers his work is done or else GMI and the other stakeholders in the industry's calls for action on the sub-30 ha peatlands are not being treated as a viable proposal and they are being officially sidelined. What is our guests' response to that?

Mr. Mel O'Rourke

The chairperson of the working group invited the Minister to meet us and he refused so I think that answers the Deputy's question. The levers of power sit with the members and it is up to them to insist this gets resolved.

Mr. John Neenan

GMI has previously had meetings with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. There were a number of meetings with the latest one being maybe two years ago. The Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, was there as well. We had a meeting probably two and a half years ago with one of the officials in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications but it is not prepared to engage with us at all now. That Department is, as I think Deputy Carthy said, passing it on to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, whose officials are trying to do the very best they can although their hands are completely tied. They cannot bring in the legislation. They are the only people who are prepared to discuss the situation with us as of now.

Deputy Martin Browne

All right, so it is not just this committee some Ministers are refusing to meet. Mr. Neenan said the Government has been inactive on this issue since January. We have put in a number of questions to the Minister in previous months and we have been repeatedly told about this €1.6 million in funding for the Beyond Peat project and developing alternatives. From talking to the industry there are no alternatives there or we are way behind. I have been told how an independent expert has been working with all the suppliers to ascertain the level or horticultural peat stocks available to the growers. I have also been told how shelf and house trials on peat alternatives in the mushroom sector are making what the Minister referred to as good progress. Will the organisations give the committee their experiences of these initiatives and their usefulness, as they see it?

Mr. Mel O'Rourke

On the specialist being employed, as I understand it he made a report in June of this year that has not seen the light of day. We have not been given a copy of it. We have requested it and it has not been made available. I do not think we need to say any more than that.

Deputy Martin Browne

Have both organisations requested a copy of that?

Mr. Mel O'Rourke

Yes.

Ms Orla McManus

Yes.

Mr. Mel O'Rourke

In writing.

Deputy Martin Browne

They have, and still there is nothing forthcoming.

Mr. John Neenan

The specialist was to deal with volumes of peat but they went on then to send out a questionnaire to deal with areas of boglands, who owned them, whether they have right-of-ways or are adjoining a roadway. Those questions had nothing to do with the terms of reference and unfortunately there was a very poor response. They sent it to me and after speaking to me they sent it to the IFA, Kildare Growers and a number of other growers but it was not relevant to the growers, so I think the response was very little and that is part of the reason it has not been published. I understand there are three recommendations and they certainly will not solve the problem either. I will be surprised if it is published.

Deputy Martin Browne

A worrying aspect of my engagements with the Minister, and I am sure other members have come across the same, is a particular comment he made at the end of one of the replies he gave me on the issue of alternatives for horticulture. He said:

The peat supply needs of the horticulture sector for the coming period will be met through existing stockpiles of peat, ongoing supply from Northern Ireland for the mushroom industry and an element of peat imports from outside of Ireland.

The recommendations of the working group Mr. Neenan outlined in his opening statement seem to have been ignored.

Is it fair to conclude that the importation of peat is now seen as the preferred option of the three Departments?

Ms Orla McManus

I do not believe there has been enough interaction with them to even get that sense. The issue has been ignored and is not being discussed.

Mr. John Neenan

I believe that they just hope we will go away. I am a little surprised by this situation. We can at least get gas in the current energy crisis, but the price is sky high. If we have no horticultural peat in Ireland, we will not be able to import it from the Baltic states or Canada - first because of the price and, second, because it will be going east rather than to Ireland. We can get gas to keep us going for a time, albeit at a crazy price, but if there is no horticultural peat, we will not have an Irish horticultural industry in a short time. It will be impossible for the large companies to import peat while also spending the money that Westland Horticulture, Klasmann-Deilmann, Bulrush Horticulture and so on are investing in alternatives. I am going to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on Friday when I will invite officials to visit the Klasmann-Deilmann facilities and see all of the various alternatives and volumes. Klasmann-Deilmann is even trying to compost its own willow to see what can be done with it.

The Departments do not seem to understand what is happening and what the context of what we are trying to do is. In a working group meeting that Mr. O'Rourke and I attended, one of the NGOs suggested that an alternative would be to pick the bracken from the ditches in west Cork to supply the horticulture market. If we sent out a group of people to pick bracken in west Cork, I am sure we would be stopped as well. It just shows the level of understanding of what is happening.

Deputy Martin Browne

Were they going to give people yellow jackets to be safe and seen on the roads while picking that bracken?

Chairman

I call Mr. O'Rourke.

Deputy Martin Browne

I have a few cases-----

Chairman

Deputy, Mr. O'Rourke wishes to comment.

Deputy Martin Browne

Sorry.

Mr. Mel O'Rourke

It should not be about importing peat. We have the best quality peat in the world in Ireland to do the job that we want done. All we need is for regulations to be put in place so that we can comply with them. When we retail mushrooms in the UK, retailers ask whether we are fully compliant. We have to show them that we are compliant with Bord Bia's requirements and so on. One of the risks to our business is that those retailers will tell us that the peat is not being harvested legally. That thought keeps us awake at night. Peat is available, but it is not being legally harvested. It will take Government legislation to make it legal and for us to comply with the requirements of the marketplace.

Deputy Martin Browne

I agree. I have visited places where I have seen materials being mixed to try to find alternatives. The proposed timeframe is not viable.

Regarding mushrooms, I visited Walsh Mushrooms in Golden, which the Chairman will know. As soon as I walked into the place, the complex nature of the peat being used there was apparent. The company regulates water retention, drainage, the peat's chemical composition, etc. It is more than understandable that more time is needed to develop alternatives, yet the Departments are in a big rush.

This issue is coupled with the unresolved problem of energy price increases. The sector is reliant on energy to maintain suitable temperatures in the rooms where the mushrooms are grown, as I saw in Walsh Mushrooms. Great efforts are being undertaken in Golden and throughout the industry to incorporate clean alternatives and renewables into its energy consumption. In terms of carbon footprints, it is sad to see that both of the industries represented before us are trying to do the right thing while Departments are actively promoting a situation where peat must be driven 3,000 km across the world to a country where we already have so much of it and so little is required for these industries. The industries are doing all they can, but that effort is not being replicated by the Departments. Is that putting ideology over common sense? There does not seem to be a pile of common sense at play.

The witnesses have pointed out the amount of time that will be needed to make the change to alternatives. How far down the line are we in that regard?

Ms Orla McManus

The Deputy mentioned the mushroom industry. We believe that we can be the most sustainable mushroom producers in Europe. On Monday, we submitted our new Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, operational programme for 2023 to 2030. Some 45% of our members' spend over the next seven years will be on the agri-environmental and climate actions - renewable energies, good water usage, insulation and reducing our energy usage by moving to variable speed drives and more efficient equipment. We are focused on reducing our energy usage, but it feels futile and our members are reluctant. The main question for them is why they should invest if they do not know whether they will still be in existence in six or nine months' time. We have had to encourage them to proceed with their plans in the hope that we can get some kind of resolution. They are investing in renewables and want to use their input materials sustainably. They are paying levies to CMP to invest in researching an alternative. We believe we have a solution. We have been trialling it and have got as far as full tunnels using an alternative. Obviously, yields will suffer, but we can work with that.

We want to invest and we will get there by 2030, but the Government's only support for us so far has come via the producer organisation, PO, scheme, which is money from Europe. We need help, but before we even have those conversations, we must have the peat we need in the short-to-medium term. Without that, we will not need any further investment because there will be nothing left in which to invest. The businesses will be gone and the jobs will be lost. We will not be able to pull that expertise out of the woodwork in a few years' time when a simple licensing process is ready. It is now or never - there is no more time. Growers are questioning their viability over the next six to nine months. This is a conversation that we as a PO are having every day of the week. We need action.

Mr. James Spillane

Our industry has spent tens of millions of euro and pounds on researching alternatives. There simply is not enough material at this time. One of our main challenges has to do with how a great deal of the alternatives come from residue from the timber industry, but the timber industry is facing enough challenges of its own. It is struggling and will continue to see a shortage of available materials. As such, what is happening in our industry is not for the want of investment. We have little or no - none, actually - Government support for research and development. All of the investment has come from the industry's members in order to find a path for themselves. We have asked for nothing other than some time, fair legislation under which we can operate and a just transition at the end of the process so that we can continue supplying our industry and our customers.

Mr. Paddy Gleeson

From listening to this debate, it seems that we will not make any headway until legislation is enacted. I wish to ask Mr. Spillane and Deputy Fitzmaurice something. There appears to be a small ray of light in the form of the sub-30 ha sites. Is the EPA saying that all sub-30 ha sites should be hydrologically linked?

I am interested to hear that Mr. Spillane also has a legal case pending on what hydrologically linked means. To me, until we get legislation enacted, the sub-30 ha seems to be the only route that is possible at the moment. We have been discussing and meeting, and nobody seems to take any heed of us.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

In what I have seen before, you have to be able show that something is not hydrologically linked to the other thing. That is a hydrologist and an ecologist. We have worked with RPS before on bogs. We had to show that, as well as doing the screening, the appropriate EIA and all the usual palaver that we have to do now. I have seen it before, where a drain or a ditch was rounded that was down to the lough. When they do the sampling, they go down and look for upwelling when they are doing the hydrological tests. The LiDAR system would have given some accuracy in looking at the depth of lough in some bogs for permeability. That system can show if something is hydrologically not linked to it or not.

Mr. James Spillane

Just for clarity, I do not have any case outstanding regarding hydrological linking, but there is one in the industry, and we look forward to getting a better understanding of it in due course.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I suppose the only upside if all our meetings is that it is very informative and educational to hear Deputy Fitzmaurice speak about bogs. I could come back and listen to him any day talking about bogs. On a more serious note, I must say that, as a member of a Government party, I am deeply embarrassed that the witnesses are back again. I am also disappointed that there is no representative from the Green Party at the meeting. Unquestionably, the horticulture sector has been failed by various Government agencies and the three Departments. It is up for debate which of the Departments is ultimately responsible, but we will lay the blame on all three of them for the moment. I think the key point to take away from what the witnesses have told us is that we have now become reliant on an imported peat that is clearly of inferior quality. This committee has heard many times about the heavy price we are paying now for ash dieback as a result of an import. There is nothing to say that we are not going to have a similar consequence with inferior peat imports. I am very familiar with the Klassmann-Deilmann operation. It is a fantastic business and employer on the Longford-Westmeath border. Equally, I am familiar with many of Mr. Neenan's groups. Many of them are family businesses that are ready, willing and able to operate under the 30 ha, but an increasing number of them are being dragged to the courts by the EPA. They are court cases that the EPA probably knows in its heart and soul are only being taken to tick a box, and probably ultimately, will never come to pass. The EPA is putting those families through unnecessary expense, purely because of expedience and because somebody with an alternative agenda decides that this needs to be done.

We have referenced the various Departments that should have ultimate responsibility for this, and heretofore have failed the sector over the past two years. It is disappointing for me, as a Government Deputy, that the Department refused to attend the meeting today. Deputy Carthy has already proposed that we bring the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in here. As a relatively new Deputy, it is disappointing to see that officials can refuse to come before a committee. I would have thought the committee serves an important role in the ecology of legislation and everything else. I take it as a deep disrespect to the committee that it has happened. Also, Departments need to realise that we have a very important role in the ecology of legislation in that a great deal of legislation cannot pass through the two Houses until it comes before this committee first. I support Deputy Carthy 's proposal that we invite representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to come before committee. It behoves us to put forward a proposal that we invite representatives from the three Departments to come before us. In the great tradition of any parish committee, we should write them a strongly-worded letter. We need to let them know that this is a serious issue.

We have heard very heartfelt testimony from everybody here, particularly Mr. Mahon and Mr. O'Rourke, on just how dire the situation is for the sector at the moment. We have to send a very strong message to those Departments. I commend the Chair on the lead he has taken on this since he has come into his role. He has been forthright in this area, and also in forestry. In both instances, we have been failed by the Departments. We need to ask the officials of the Departments and the three Ministers to come before us as soon as possible. We have a date for two free, and we need to ask the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to join them and come with them. It is unquestionable that we cannot let this go on without giving the sector a solution. I know there are Department mandarins listening into this. They will see, know and feedback just how serious an issue it is. There are few anoraks out there who are listening to this as well.

There is a divide out there, which I think Deputy Fitzmaurice summed up well. The media do not buy into this. They see bogs as a wonderful idyllic landscape and think they are beautiful and should be protected. We need to put what the sector is looking for very succinctly. It is not looking to pillage bogs and to destroy the countryside. I know there is a huge importation of peat coming in from abroad to my part of the country in the next couple of weeks. It is going to take 200 trucks to transport that down the country. Only in the last few weeks Longford County Council has taken the decision to put a weight restriction on a local road to stop Bord na Móna from moving its trucks and peat that it is bringing up to the briquette factory. If a local authority is able to move that quickly to do something, it surely beholds the Departments to come in here and work with an industry which, let us face it, is on its knees and is facing a crisis that ultimately could sound the death knell for thousands of jobs and millions of euro of income for this country. It has been said on a number of occasions that the sub-30 ha is the immediate and obvious solution to get us out of this logjam. It does not require an awful lot of creative thinking. We have already had three reports. We do not need many more reports about this.

I have one question for Mr. Neenan on the 30 ha. We have had this conversation, but I presume that Mr. Neenan would be of the view that if we did allow the sub-30 ha to operate, we would have sufficient peat to fulfil the industry requirements, and that would not require the opening of new bogs? That solution in itself would require around 15,000 ha of bog, which is less than 0.1% of the peatland of this country. For the anoraks and the Department boffins that are listening, we are not talking about peatlands right across Ireland; we are talking about 0.1% of peatland. Is that correct?

Mr. John Neenan

Certainly, it would supply the Irish horticultural market. It would also be a win-win for everyone in Government as well. There would be no more large-scale bog harvesting. There would be a commitment to rewet those areas. Obviously, we would have to discuss the possibility of getting funding to do that. Bord na Móna got its €108 million. Certainly, it would be a condition that that would be done. That would ensure the provision of sufficient peat for the Irish horticultural market. I wish to put on record that GMI is fully committed to moving away from peat. We expect that certainly by 2030, and probably before that, the same as in the mushroom industry. Most of Westland's hobby product is now well over 60% peat-free. Klassmann-Deilmann's product is between 25% to 30% peat-free. It is a massive change. That will allow the industry, the growers and the mushroom industry to survive and continue to prosper until we have 100% alternatives.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I have one more question.

Mr. Mahon said that we are in a tripartite Government and that he feels that part of the agreement under the programme for Government is the death knell for the sector. I can only speak for my party, but that will not be the case. We will be strong advocates for the sector. The message we need to send to the Departments is that our guests have come to this meeting with a ready-made solution. It is a solution to safeguard 0.1% of our peatland. We are not looking to pillage the national peatland stock. We have a ready solution. We need to get the three Departments and Ministers before the committee. We have muscles to flex. Those Departments are going to need us to action and move forward legislation. If they can refuse to come before the committee, we can refuse to work on legislation.

Chairman

Did I cut Deputy Browne off? Does he have another question?

Deputy Martin Browne

The Chairman did cut me off but I will forgive him.

Chairman

I am sorry.

Deputy Martin Browne

Deputy Flaherty said what I wanted to say. This is a big industry through which an amount of jobs and money can come into the economy. We need a strongly worded letter or whatever people want. It must be made quite clear that when the next invitation goes out to those Ministers, there should be no reference to particular dates on which they are available. We have been trying to arrange dates since January. I do not care how busy a Minister or anybody else is because if they are serious about this industry, they will make a date available as soon as possible. Representatives of the three Departments should come before the committee in order that we can put questions to them. This is an important industry for the country and the economy. We have been messed around. We have listened to stakeholders again today and for them to be messed around by three Departments should be unacceptable to this committee. It should be unacceptable to any right-minded person. I support Deputies Flaherty and Carthy. We need to write a letter to the Departments and insist they come before this committee, preferably before Christmas but as soon as possible.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I am glad to have the opportunity to come to the meeting. I listened to our guests' presentations in my office. I heard most of what they said. Like all the other members of the committee, I have heard it many times now. What is going on is a scandal. We are talking about 17,000 jobs in total. There is also a spin-off to the local economy, in the shops and whatever else, including the pubs at night time. If people in these areas become unemployed, the money they are able to spend will not be around. It is a shame and disgrace to think that these fellows - and I have no problem in naming the Minister and his Green Party - who are purporting to advocate green policies and whatever else are happy to buy peat in other parts of Europe and bring it into the country on boats, from which smoke is whistling into the clouds. The peat is then offloaded with more machines, transferred to 200 lorries and delivered around the country. Perhaps not all of us went to university but we are educated enough to know there are carbon emissions from every vehicle that moves. In many cases, we are trying to keep vehicles running because we need them, but this need not be happening at the level and to the extent it is happening.

What are our guests asking for? They have said there are no Government guidelines, and that is clear. They are asking that they be allowed seek permission to operate on areas of less than 30 ha. The Government is fudging and will not even come before the committee. It is an absolute disgrace. It is bad enough to think that three Ministers, Ministers of State or some other representative cannot come in because they are so bloody busy. What about the officials who know this meeting has been arranged for weeks? They cannot come to the meeting to listen to the concerns that our guests have put together well. I compliment them for how they have made the case for what they need. It is a disgrace. I think of the grand people who provide a horticultural service, such as the Shannons of Farranfore, the Hickeys of Boherboy and the Falveys of Glenbeigh. They are fine people who are doing their best and employing people, and we are jeopardising all of that.

Our guests are only asking for a short- or medium-term solution. They will then be going down some other route, and I am not happy with that. If anyone thinks I do not know the difference between white, brown and black turf, I do. I know what our guests are talking about and I understand it. Every day of every year since I became able to walk, I have been in a bog somewhere, whether in our own bogs, other bogs, or whatever. I understand fine what our guests are talking about. It is a fright to God. We do not have diamonds, gold or any other thing. They will not less us drill for oil, gas or whatever else. The one thing we have is peat and they will not allow us to use 0.1% of the bogland of Ireland. We have a Government that is supposed to be called a Government. The Green Party tail is wagging the Government dog. That is what is happening. There were certainly other options open to the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste when they were forming the Government but they were hell bent on joining with the Green Party the very minute the count was over. Whether they realise it or not, they will suffer for it because they had other options but they were hell bent on joining with the Green Party.

We were here before and we are here now. We are very sorry for our guests. We understand their concerns. Do our guests expect part of the industry to close down? For how much longer can they keep going the way we are going now?

Mr. James Spillane

Two plants have closed already. Costs are rising. The cost of importing is driving up the cost of the final product. The alternatives are more expensive than peat used to be. Consequently, we are going to have a problem with demand and, therefore, undoubtedly fewer plants will be required in the future.

Not only that, we are losing people daily. We are bleeding people from our industry all the time because we cannot harvest. Those people who used to do the work of harvesting in the bogs are no longer with us. They have moved to other industries, which is fine for now, but when the recession comes and they return to their communities, those jobs, which were there for them for decades, will be gone. That is the true cost of it in the community. The short answer is that we are undoubtedly on a journey out of this country.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

That is scandalous. When we ask questions in the Dáil as to why this or that is happening, we are told there is a war going on and exceptional things are arising from that. However, during the Second World War, turf kept this country going. It was the boglands of the country that kept it going. This is an exceptional time. I am appealing to the Government, to the Minister and to his party to realise that this is an exceptional time when costs are increasing daily and jobs are extremely hard to hold onto. If we cannot hold onto jobs, we cannot create jobs. I am appealing, through the Chairman, to the Government and the Minister. They must listen to our guests. They cannot keep going on the wind if they cannot get the product they need. We have it here in the country.

This man, Mr. Mel O’Rourke, says that we have the black turf that we need, and I know what he is talking about. It is the fright of God that we will have these kinds of industries closed down, such as the mushroom industry and the horticultural industry, and all that it is involved in these. They are Irish and we should be proud of them and try to hold onto them. I am appealing to those people in the Department to come in here when the committee arranges another meeting for them. I thank the witnesses for coming in this evening.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I want to make a few concluding points. First, I want to acknowledge the Chair, who has made the meeting happen. He is absolutely committed to this and I say that genuinely to the witnesses here today. In the programme for Government, they talk about an amazing commitment to the horticultural sector and to growing the sector. We will have a major Food Wise conference in Dublin Castle tomorrow, yet we have a problem with peat here this evening. They will all be blabbering down in Dublin Castle and they will be high and mighty while talking about their Food Wise strategy going forward and the great potential of organics and the great potential of our food. That is an important point to make and I will be making that point in the Seanad tomorrow.

This meeting has been beneficial. We have gone around the houses and we know the story. We know the frustration and I think that is loud and clear. The witnesses have come here yet again to highlight and flag their concerns about their industry. They will be familiar with many a politician bellyaching about a problem that they are doing sweet damn all about. They have raised the stakes again and for that I thank them for coming here. I do not think it has been a wasted session; it has been good. Certainly, I was taken by Deputy Flaherty’s contribution here, which was honest and frank. He spoke of his disappointment and embarrassment, which was courageous of him as a member of the Government to say. We have to move on now. We have to mobilise in whatever way we can and I am committed to this, as I know are other Members in this House. They are in government, they are elected, they have made promises and they have reneged on them. They are not delivering, and we have to crank up the leverage on them. That is a task that we as politicians on the Opposition benches how have to do and we must collaborate on this across the Houses.

I want to ask Ms McManus one particular question on the mushroom sector. We have a good mushroom sector, although we may have problems at the moment, but will she tell us of the capacity to grow even further and to expand, given the medium of peat in the short term? I am conscious that in the mushroom sector there are some big boys and there are small growers involved. They loosely feed into a sort of co-operative movement or co-operation with some of the bigger ones in terms of transport and the financing and leasing of their vehicles. Many small guys cannot carry it on their own so they need to be tied in contractually. I am aware of the financial support that some of the big producers give to assist smaller growers in terms of growing and access to the market, which is critical for them and comes with critical mass and also with the transport costs. They are all specialised areas and they need to have all those layers in place to sustain their business. Many small businesses have it. In terms of the mushroom sector, are we going to see significant job losses in the next 12 months?

Ms Orla McManus

Already this year three plants have closed in addition to another two last year. While a lot of that has to do with input costs increases, these guys would keep going if they had some certainty over their future. Harte Peat especially is such a big supplier to our industry. There is such uncertainty and we are putting programmes of investment forward, like we are doing this week for the years 2023 to 2030. Some growers are not willing to take the risk even though they do have the support of the bigger players through the co-operative. It is a real benefit of having the co-operative because we have good governance and fairness; the smaller guys go out there and then the bigger guys have the flexibility by having the small growers. Some people might say the Irish mushroom market is saturated but we have to challenge that because mushrooms are the epitome of sustainability and the epitome of the circular economy. We need to grow our consumption of mushrooms as a blended ingredient alongside meat and as an alternative to meat or a dish in their own right.

We have the UK market. Our producer organisation has taken on board fruit growers recently so we supply into Keelings now. We have channels in France and in the Netherlands. There is huge opportunity for growth but the thing that is stopping it the moment is uncertainty. We are dealing with that with Brexit. We have dealt with Covid-19 and now we have the sterling issue. We can nearly get through all of that but if we do not have peat at the end of the day we will just not have a business. If we say to Sainsbury's and Tesco that we are not compliant we just will not have a leg to stand on. Why would they go for an Irish mushroom when no Irish mushroom can be compliant?

Mr. Kieran Dunne

I have a question for all of the Deputies, including the Chair. How can the Irish Government and specifically the green tail, as was mentioned earlier on, justify importation of peat on environmental economic and ethical grounds? Time is running out for all our industries, as has been stated throughout the evening. What does the committee recommend as the next steps for us? We appreciate the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine working on our behalf. What is the timeframe or timeline and what actions should be taken, as was mentioned earlier in this year?

Chairman

I will answer because I am the only Government Deputy left in the session. This cannot be justified. There is no justification for it. Whatever way you look at it, whether it is upside-down or downside-up, the import of peat into this country is completely illogical. I think it was Ms McManus who said that if you put a credit scorecard on the emissions in importing peat, it has to do more damage to the environment than harvesting our own. There is no logic to this.

I have said that in the Dáil previously and I have no qualms about saying it in any forum that this is just illogical. It makes no sense whatsoever. The other evening we had someone before the committee who was speaking about the restoration of land. Again, much of that was not logical either. It is a regulation coming from Brussels that will give us a lot of headaches going forward. Hopefully there can be a bit of common sense. All the speakers have talked about common sense and that is what we badly need here, a little dose of common sense. People are on their high horses about ceasing peat production. I think we have all conceded that peat production for generating energy has to stop because it is not good for the environment. We are accepting that principle but there is a miniscule amount of land needed for this. If you are talking about a circular economy, this peat, as I think Mr. Dunne said, is not to be burned, but it is going back into the soil again, so it is a circular economy. We chop straw and put it back into the ground. This is finding its way back into the ground again and it is enriching the soil or wherever it is spread. There is no defence of this.

The witnesses asked us what we are going to do. We will have a private meeting in the next few days as a committee where we will discuss how we can take this forward. As I said, we have devoted time to this in the past. I thought last time this topic left us that we had a solution for it, but unfortunately, we did not. I think it was Mr. Neenan who said that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine felt that the sub-30 ha would be the solution for the problem. We can clearly see now that is not working in practice or is not able to work in practice in the way the legislation is framed. This has to be done immediately. As a member of the governing party, in the morning I will raise this issue with the Taoiseach and his main adviser. This is a serious embarrassment, as Deputy Flaherty has said. It is a serious embarrassment to me is a rural Deputy. We have plenty of mushroom growers in our county. We have plenty of horticulture as well, so it is an embarrassment to me as a Deputy that this has not been sorted, but we will not let the bit go. As I said, we will sit down as a committee and see how we can try and move it forward. I think it was Deputy Fitzmaurice who said that we not going to make false promises, but we will do our best.

I call Deputy Fitzmaurice.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

No one can justify peat coming from another country. That is the first thing.

The fact of the matter is that horticulture, the mushroom industry and domestic turf cutting do not use even 1% of the bogs of Ireland. People go on about re-wetting and sequestering carbon but it would take approximately 50 years to do Bord na Móna's holdings and others that are not being used. We are not going to do all of this overnight. Under the habitats directive, the target timeframe to bring back degraded lands is 30 years and you have to work on it for longer after that. You leave that and take the lower-hanging fruit.

I will be clear on one issue and state publicly what I am thinking. I have dealt with many Departments regarding bogs. In fairness to the Chair, he has put a lot of effort into this issue, just as he has with forestry. As a person who has been involved with bogs for years, I believe that there should be an exemption for sites under 30 ha. We have to be clear on this. That will not work everywhere that there is a hydrological separation. If legislation is being prepared, it should include a buffer zone of 100 m or 150 m outside of that in which it is understood that there may be some loss of water. Do the witnesses understand me? Would a solution like that work for their organisations? I understand that companies such as Klasmann-Deilmann and others can own very large areas of bog but I am asking about sites under 30 ha. It must also be understood that my plot could be stuck onto someone else's so we need to provide for a buffer. I have seen the hydrology done on sites like these and on high banks. The bogs I am talking about would be about 14 spit deep when cut with a sleán, so they are fairly deep. That can be seen when tests are done on them. A lot of people are talking about bogs but do not understand them. Many of these so-called experts think they know everything but they know damn all. The surface under a bog goes up and down and these people do not understand that not all the water will flow in one direction. I cut a bog once and we were going into it downhill. Water will not flow up a hill. You have to understand all of these things about a bog. Every bog is different, as is the make-up of what is under it. Some will have sandy stuff and some will have lock. All of them are different.

We have done a lot of work on resolving the issue of turf-cutting bogs and designated bogs. We are working constructively with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The service had achieved a lot by re-wetting but Europe has tried to throw a spanner in the works in the past week, although we will deal with that in our own time. Would my proposal be a workable solution for the likes of this committee? I have no problem going into any of the Departments with the Chair or anyone else to try to find resolutions but the Minister has to give the go-ahead. We cannot keep hiding. It is as simple as that.

Mr. John Neenan

I did a survey previously and there are 22 or 23 bogs that we can say with certainty are not hydrologically linked with other bogs. There are other cases in which there are small areas on one side of the road and a large bog on the other. They have to be treated separately. There are also cases in which, for example, Klasmann-Deilmann has a small bog of 10 ha that is included with a large bog 2 miles away. They need to be completely separated. It would work then.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

To be clear, when bogs are separated, certain tests have to be done on them. There is stuff that has to be one. A pipe is put in the ground to allow water to upwell and determine the depth of lock and so on. It is provable. Do the witnesses understand? What I am trying to find is a solution to get things moving. We need to give an exemption so that people do not have to go through all of this rigmarole.

Deputy Martin Browne

I have a quick question for Ms McManus. Did I take her up correctly earlier? Did she say that the alternative mushroom producers have is enough to keep them going but that the output would be reduced? If that is the case, how far can the output go down before the business becomes unviable and places start to close?

Ms Orla McManus

I am sorry. I missed the first part of the question. What did the Deputy say was up?

Deputy Martin Browne

Did I pick up Ms McManus correctly earlier? Was she saying that some of the alternatives available would be enough for the industry but that the output of mushrooms would be down?

Ms Orla McManus

A lot of alternatives have been considered through the working group and so on. None of the alternatives proposed by the working group would work for us. Coir from India and Sri Lanka is not an option for us due to the cost. The tiniest increase in costs is now enough to make a grower non-viable. Members of the Commercial Mushroom Producers Co-Operative Society, CMP, are working together. I do not believe what is happening here is happening anywhere else in the world. We have growers, composters, harvesters, laboratories and trained people teaching people how to pick mushrooms. It is about the synergy of all of these working together. It is not simply about a laboratory trying to develop an alternative. There is on-site development with people who have built up expertise in the mushroom industry over years. These are all coming together. It is only because we have that and because our members are willing to invest up to a point - as I keep saying, we really need support - that we now have a workable option. However, it is nowhere near commercial scale yet. It is still at trial level. We think we will get to 2030. All of our stakeholders are from across the mushroom industry but, even if we get a substrate that looks like it might work, it must have no nutrition and not inflate the compost it is going on top of or soak up and leech all of our water. It is very hard to find that combination. We think we now have something. The yields are not optimal, which means we must keep developing our blueprint and may have to alter how we ruffle, water or fill or how we pick the mushrooms. The product mix we offer to supermarkets may also need to change.

This comes at a cost. We cannot produce a conventional mushroom for £2 a kilo anymore. When this substrate is used, it is now £2.50 and that is if we can get the same yield, so we are still a way off. We need support. This is being driven by industry because we feel we have no other option. While it was always going to be the way that we went, this has put a fire underneath us. Our industry does not have money to be playing around with. If we are to be bothered investing, we would like some kind of certainty that we will still be here next year.

Deputy Martin Browne

If the industry is to continue with a reduced yield, how far can it go down before businesses are in trouble and no longer viable? Are we near that point?

Ms Orla McManus

What is affecting the industry right now is not yields. The yield for the mushroom industry has gone from approximately 20 kg per m2 to as high as 36 kg or 40 kg per m2 in some instances. If we bring this alternative in, we will be starting at 20 kg per m2 again. We will not be competitive in the UK market. We hope that retailers will give us a new price for peat-free mushrooms but we all know that this will only hold for so long before they will want the same peat-free mushroom for a conventional price. It is not that using the alternative will make growers unviable.

It is about keeping our growers viable until we have a commercially available alternative that yields at where it needs to be for the growers. It is in the next six to 12 months that we need to make the growers viable but this alternative is not going to be available, even to CMP members, on a 100% scale until 2030.

Chairman

I thank the witnesses for participating in today's meeting. Their frustration and their anxiety - that is not even a strong enough word - for their industry is apparent, and their genuineness about trying to find a solution comes across very clearly.

Tomorrow, the committee will launch its report on issues impacting dog welfare in Ireland. There will be an opportunity for photographs on the Plinth at 12.50 p.m., subject to weather, and the report launch will take place in the AV room at 1 p.m.

The joint committee adjourned at 8.01 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 19 October 2022.