Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate -
Tuesday, 19 Sep 2023

Citizens Assembly Report on Biodiversity Loss: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

Good morning. Some members are in the room and some are in their offices in Leinster House. I have received apologies from Deputies Alan Farrell and Bríd Smith and from Senators Alice-Mary Higgins and Pauline O’Reilly. I understand that Deputy Paul Murphy will act as substitute for Deputy Smith.

The purpose of today’s meeting is to discuss the committee’s examination of the Citizen’s Assembly Report on Biodiversity Loss. On behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome the following representatives from the citizens' assembly: Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin, chair; Dr. Mícheál Ó Cinnéide, member of the expert advisory group; Professor Tas Crowe, vice president for sustainability at University College Dublin and a member of the expert advisory group; and Dr. James Moran, senior lecturer in ecology at Atlantic Technical University, who is also a member of the expert advisory group and no stranger to the committee. We are particularly delighted to welcome two members of the citizens' assembly, Ms Anne Jones from County Clare and Mr. Patrick Joyce from Tuam in County Galway. I thank them all for the work they have done in recent years. It is a very significant report and I believe that, in time, it will prove to be a seminal report on how we deal with biodiversity and address the challenges we have. I thank them for coming up today. This is an important step in the process of achieving political consensus around how we deal with biodiversity in this country.

Before we begin, I will read a note on privilege to remind witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members that they are allowed to participate in the meeting only if they are physically located in the Leinster House complex. I ask those members who are joining the meeting remotely that, prior to making their contributions, they confirm they are on the Leinster House campus.

I call Dr. Ní Shúilleabháin to make her opening statement.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

A Chathaoirleach, a Theachtai Dálaí, a Sheanadóirí, a dhaoine uaisle go léir, go raibh míle maith agaibh as ucht an deis bheith libh inniu chun labhair faoin obair tábhachtach atá déanta ag an Tionól Saoránach ar Laghdú Bithéagsúlacht.

Citizens’ assemblies in Ireland have, since their commencement with the Constitutional Convention, asked the people to work on behalf of their fellow country men and women to put forward solutions to large societal problems. This citizens’ assembly was tasked by the Oireachtas to examine and consider how the State can improve its response to the crisis of biodiversity loss which was declared by Dáil Éireann in 2019. In this, the State provided its citizens with a voice on how they and we want nature to be managed, now and into the future.

Some 20,000 people were invited to take part in this citizens’ assembly and more than 2,300 of those responded positively to the invitation, with 99 members then invited to take part in this deliberative democracy process as a representative snapshot of society. As chair, I would like to again thank each of these members for their participation in this civic duty and for giving so generously of their time in considering this complex problem. It was a powerful example of community and a wonderful depiction of meitheal in contributing to our societal and policy landscape. It has been my privilege to be part of the process and to experience how Ireland is in a unique international spotlight when it comes to the work and, most important, outcomes of our citizens’ assemblies. I would like to also thank all of those who submitted to the assembly. More than 600 submissions from individuals, volunteer groups, industry and communities across Ireland and the world made valuable contributions to this, the world’s first national Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss.

Nature can, at times, seem inconvenient to us but, fundamentally, we as humans are only one part of nature and we rely solely on it to provide for us and to protect us. At the heart of the work of this citizens’ assembly was a realisation that a breakdown between humanity and the natural world, such as we are seeing today, puts us all at risk. Over the course of ten months, the assembly participated in an evidence-based work programme which also highlighted and incorporated valuable and varied input of voices from the ground and from communities affected by or working with our environment. The 159 recommendations agreed and voted on by members were parsed into the various policy, industry and voluntary sectors across the whole of society that impact on and are impacted by biodiversity.

The recommendations and the wording therein were carefully deliberated and discussed by the assembly. I encourage anyone watching proceedings today to read through them in the first chapter of the report that is available online and which the committee has before it today.

We are incredibly lucky in Ireland to have such a wealth of environment and natural heritage. We are also lucky that we have a society that trusts in scientific processes and research. The first element of our work was to consider the devastating problem of biodiversity loss that we are in. In doing so, it was surprising and depressing to learn of the poor state of our freshwater, marine environment, grasslands, peatlands, forestry, hedgerows and wildlife. I believe, however, that we are now witnessing a sea change in how people are considering, valuing and looking after the environment around them, and that the outcomes of this assembly speak to that. People in Ireland care about nature.

As someone who proudly comes from rural Ireland, a small townland in County Mayo, I am delighted to note that over 60% of the assembly membership was from rural Ireland. While we hear much rhetoric on the urban-rural divide in terms of care of the environment, no such divide was apparent in the room. This mirrors research findings from the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, which have previously been presented to this committee, that people both young and old and from rural and urban areas are worried about our environment and want more to be done. In our assembly meetings there were differences of opinion and in experiences but, through respectful listening, dialogue and engagement, which are powerful tools of deliberative democracy, the assembly came to overwhelming majority agreement on nearly all of the recommendations the committee sees before it today.

The first section of recommendations emphasises the need for urgent action to be taken by the State. Figures outlining our biodiversity loss are stark, with many plant, animal and bird species in danger of extinction. Almost 30% of our semi-natural grasslands have disappeared, less than half of our marine environment is in a healthy state and almost 50% of our freshwater systems are in unsatisfactory condition. Where we once had over 500 pristine rivers, we now have only 32.

Members of the assembly wanted to highlight and emphasise the vital role the State has in creating an informed and enabling environment for action across the whole of society. A recurring theme across the work of the assembly was the failure of the State to implement its own laws with regard to nature and members emphasised the progress that can be made by enacting current legislation and policies. Members noted the key roles of local communities, local authorities, NGOs and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, in addressing the biodiversity crisis and highlighted the need to properly resource these to enact national legislation.

As chair, and on behalf of members of this citizens’ assembly, I pay tribute to farmers. From hedgerows in Tipperary to the hills of Donegal, from commonage in Connemara to clover pastures in Cork and from vegetable growers in Dublin to organic farmers in Clare, we respect and value farmers' work, expertise and knowledge. They are the custodians of almost 70% of the Irish landscape, producing food for us while also being mindful of the nature and wildlife living on their land. The members of the assembly, many of whom were members of farming communities, recommend, ask and encourage the State to acknowledge and reward farmers accordingly for this vital work.

The assembly wants farmers to be included as key actors in the discussions required around changes that are necessary to policy and their key role in solving the problem of biodiversity loss to be recognised. The work of the assembly points towards the fact that we can no longer focus solely on maximising production outputs from farming, but rather on optimising farm practices within environmental bounds. Farmers who addressed the assembly emphasised that farmers will respond to changes in policy but these have to be meaningful, widely available and of sufficient duration to make it worthwhile to significantly realign their practice.

As we saw with the recent EU nature restoration law, which was supported by this citizens’ assembly, policymakers and states can often come under siege by lobbyists and vested interests. We are reminded, however, that there are no thriving industries or economies on a planet where nature has gone beyond a point of repair. On this, members of the assembly have recommended that the agrifood industry and other industries must contribute to the conservation and restoration of the environment from which their shareholders benefit. Members of the assembly want to highlight that the economy is a subset of nature. We can strengthen our economy by valuing the ecosystem services nature provides, as well as building our reputation as a country which authentically values its land and wildlife.

I draw attention to the fact that members of the assembly recommended that Ireland adopt the UN human right to a clean, healthy and safe environment as a fundamental part of our Constitution. This is, perhaps, something we have taken for granted in this beautiful country of ours but, unfortunately, we can no longer presume it will be here for us to enjoy without protecting it. On this, our members have also aligned with other countries in recommending that nature have a right to exist without being irreparably damaged. A key message that underpinned our work was that we should be good ancestors in considering those coming after us and leave this land in as good a condition as possible for future generations, something for which we all bear responsibility.

From urban planning to peatlands, from invasive species to the ocean, the members of this assembly have carefully considered the balance between economy, society and nature in their recommendations and return these to the Oireachtas as a package of measures suggesting how we can attempt to address this fundamental crisis we find ourselves in. The number of recommendations reflect the breadth and depth of the issue that we face but with political will, public awareness and the actions of public authorities, we can turn the direction of biodiversity loss towards biodiversity conservation and, ultimately, biodiversity gain. I would encourage individuals, groups, businesses and councils to reference the recommendations in seeing what they themselves can do. However, from the perspective of this committee, it is the structural and policy changes that will have a positive and lasting legacy for this State.

This can become the era in which significant change is witnessed, where we can be good ancestors and we can restore and conserve nature for our economic, societal, physical, mental, creative and community well-being.

From a personal perspective and a background in physics, our planet is insignificant and Earth is nothing unless humanity works together. As our elected representatives, the cathedral thinking required for us to build structures and lasting policies on nature for future generations to benefit from lies in the committee's hands. The citizens' assembly is behind the committee on this. Is féidir linn baint ceart le neart na ndúl.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Ní Shúilleabháin for her opening statement. I will give an opportunity now to the two members who are with us to say a few words, if they wish. Does Ms Jones want to go first?

Ms Anne Jones

I thank the Cathaoirleach. It was a step into the unknown when I accepted an invitation to become part of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. My invitation was initially one of 20,000, as Dr. Ní Shúilleabháin has said, sent to randomly selected households across the country and subsequently whittled down to 99. The subject of biodiversity is vast, urgent and challenging but it felt like something worth doing.

The term "deliberative democracy" was new. I had little, if any, sense of how it worked - how we, as ordinary citizens, could arrive at a point where we could make representative decisions in a relatively short period, absorb massive amounts of information and help shape future policy affecting the lives, livelihoods and the environment around us - but a finely-tuned secretariat supported by field experts and community and sectoral voices and a highly effective chair sustained us in the belief that if we worked together, if we stuck with the process at each and every session over each and every weekend, we could and would make a difference. Putting 99 people from different age groups and different backgrounds with different life experiences into a room, views varied hugely but it was for me democracy in action.

I grew up on the lower uplands of the Slieve Aughty mountains of east Clare. It was not prime land, but there was a pride in that land. Every inch of it was valued and if there was a field of rushes, it was drained and turned into grassland. The focus was on improving the land to maximise its efficiency and increase its return. To leave that field of rushes was a failure, not just in the eyes of the farming community but in the eyes of agricultural advisers and the State. Today, that field of rushes has a totally different value. It is hard to get our heads around this. We are challenged to understand it, to place trust in the scientific evidence that supports it and to change our ingrained mindsets.

Away from farming, a visit to Dublin Port as part of our assembly information gathering further highlighted for me what happens when mindsets change. A 680-acre site with a lot of concrete structures, shipping activity, tankers and storage silos is not conducive, one would think, to biodiversity protection or enhancement but, instead of ticking boxes just to comply with planning application requirements, the then chief executive officer, CEO, made the bold decision to change his and his company's way of thinking and become pro-active in developing a biodiversity plan. It included developing a walking-cycling route, a pontoon to protect the declining number of terns and working in partnership with BirdWatch Ireland to monitor land- and water-based animals.

I am aware of a company in my own county of Clare now taking a leaf from Dublin Port’s book. It acquired an old 30-acre manufacturing site, defunct for many years, and is undertaking a professional baseline biodiversity assessment of what is on site: the birds, animals, bats, plants and species. From there, it will make a plan to protect and enhance the biodiversity of that site, including the introduction of renewable energy resources, to ultimately reduce system costs and meet, as closely as possible, a zero-carbon footprint. Where there is a willingness, I am convinced it is possible to make a difference.

What I have learned from my involvement in the Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss and what science and our own instincts tell us is: mitigating climate change is urgent; biodiversity has a huge role to play; individually, we are required to take responsibility and action; there is an equal imperative on industries, businesses, organisations and agencies to do likewise; and Government must fully commit to make the necessary policy and strategy changes while facilitating, supporting and funding priority actions.

It is a delicate tightrope walk, to balance the absolute urgency of meeting climate change targets while at the same time not biting the hands that feed us. New obligations require a fair and just transition, but it is a monumental challenge. As the 159 recommendations go before the committee, we trust that they contribute to the work that is ahead of committee members as legislators in the daunting task of preserving, protecting and enhancing biodiversity for the generations to come.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Jones for those words. We appreciate her insight. Does Mr. Joyce wish to say a few words?

Mr. Patrick Joyce

I share the same sentiments as Ms Jones. I cannot add any more to that. We worked hard over the past year to get everything across the line.

An Cathaoirleach

Thank you for that. As usual, we have five minutes allocated for members to ask questions and receive answers. We will try to do questions and answers within the five minutes, but I will give latitude to our guests and less latitude to colleagues because I know them too well. I invite members to indicate to come in and ask questions of our guests.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for the fantastic work that has been put into this. It really shows the power of a citizens’ assembly to mobilise a sleeping giant, in a way, to confront people with the science and to get them to come down to what the options are and how we go about it.

I have a few basic questions. The witnesses talked about setting targets. What targets would they set? The number of rivers in pristine condition was mentioned in the presentation. What are the top six and how do we rank them? Having some sort of framework would help to close in on where the enforcement gaps are and so on.

Regarding mobilising people, where do the witnesses see early wins? To build confidence in people, we need to see early wins. I am interested in how the two processes of climate and biodiversity dovetailing together under the Taoiseach’s umbrella, so to speak, are seen. Where do the witnesses see co-benefits occurring, both climate and biodiversity simultaneously, so we can have win-wins?

I have two other questions. The witnesses talked about giving nature a right. In experience in other matters, where a tool of litigation around rights is created, has that been successful in mobilising the sort of community support that is needed? Many people, when they see a proposal for litigation, see that they will be forced, as Ms Jones said, to change the habits of a lifetime and that it will be done very abruptly by some legal ruling, with no supporting policies. How do the witnesses see that working?

My last question is on farming. The witnesses certainly have gone out of their way to say farmers are a large part of the solution. I am interested in where they see the biggest challenges in farming. They said farmers should be paid for doing the right thing. Can they point to three measures, say, for which farmers could be paid? A lot of people talk about it how it would be great to pay farmers for draining their wetlands, for example, but when we bring in the experts, they tell us they cannot measure what the carbon gain will be from draining those lands. Everyone then throws their hands in the air and says no payment model can be derived. It is a question of how we practise. Farmers want to see that in ten years, they will have a prosperous farming practice. It might not all come from food sales. It may also come from environmental services. However, they do not see the paths to the environmental services aspect. Can the witnesses shed light on that? I have asked more than enough questions for the moment.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

I thank the Deputy. He asked a lot of questions, which we will try to tackle. I might pass some of them to my colleagues. I will deal first with the question on targets and the top six within the 159 in the report. To give an overview, if we were to make three priorities, the first would be that the issue becomes a serious Government priority, which would be seen through targeted action across Departments, including the Department of the Taoiseach, that specifically focus on biodiversity. With that priority, the enforcement of existing laws and policies would become a key action.

Deputy Richard Bruton

On targets, I had more in mind whether they would be in regard to water, top ten sites or whatever.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

Enacting what is currently in legislation and policies and then resourcing it is key. The issue with biodiversity is that it is so complex and pervading across many State agencies and Departments, it is difficult to highlight one or two elements of it. However, across the 159 recommendations, there are specific areas in which the members of the assembly have asked the Government to review various policies, such as on forestry, arterial drainage and things like that. There are very few specific targets in the report apart from enacting current legislation, an example of which is to reduce pesticide use by 50% by 2030. Overall, the assembly has taken a very balanced view in thinking about economy, society and nature. It is about making biodiversity a priority by enacting the legislation we currently have and ensuring the resources are there to do so. That is what I would see as a key top six priority.

We absolutely can talk about early wins. There are some elements of low-hanging fruit.

The Deputy asked about climate and biodiversity. We were consistently told across our presentations that they are two sides of the same coin and that if we want to protect ourselves against climate change, enacting a lot of the biodiversity legislation will do that. Where areas are biodiverse, they are strengthened against climate action, and vice versa. They are two sides of the same coin. Climate change is one of the five main drivers of biodiversity loss, and tackling it will be part of solving the biodiversity crisis.

On the rights in terms of nature, the key message in that regard was to highlight what the UN has said is now the right of persons to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. That is already visible in many constitutions and laws. The members of the assembly wanted to enshrine an assurance that Irish people have the right to clean air, access to clean water and access to a clean environment. That is really where the focus and relevance was in considering this as a part of the Constitution.

I will hand over to my colleagues to give their response to the Deputy's questions. Dr. Moran, in particular, might come in on the farming aspect.

Dr. James Moran

The Deputy asked about the biggest challenge for farming at the moment. The biggest challenge when it comes to agriculture and land use in Ireland at this time is policy coherence.

We have conflicting demands on our land. It has to produce the food we need, secure clean water, mitigate and adapt to climate change and provide space for nature. In Ireland, over 70% of our land is managed by farmers so a lot of that challenge, when we do not have policy coherence, comes down on the backs of individual farms and communities and they are feeling that pressure at the moment. This comes back to the question of targets as well. We have to be clear on the targets.

With respect to water and climate in our biodiversity action plan, at European and Irish level we are very good at setting targets and goals. They are clear and these are the goals we have to make. On the pristine waters, the 500 courses have to be back in good ecological condition according to what we have signed up to in the water framework directive. The trouble is when you translate this broader European and Irish framework into action at the level of individual communities and farms, the messages that are coming down to the farmers are mixed messages each time. Then farmers and communities on the ground are wondering what exactly we need from them.

This comes back to the payments. Farmers mostly get their money from the Common Agricultural Policy at the moment, so there must clear, consistent messaging about what they are getting the public money for in terms of what they are delivering. The other side is producing the food. We need to get clear markets signals and farmers being paid for quality. This comes back to the design of the whole food system. As to how we pay farmers, we have to pay them through the markets for quality products they are producing to serve both Irish needs and the global market needs. There are a lot of issues around the market and about the unfair issues in the supply chain that are beyond the remit of this, but if we are going to address the food system, it impacts on that as well. Going back then, we pay farmers through the market for their product, but we also want farmers to produce the water and the spaces for nature and to mitigate climate change and adapt to it.

There also has to be a value placed on that in society and, as working businesses, farmers have to be able to see a return from that. Something we have done quite well at pilot level and at small scale in Ireland is develop these models for payments for ecosystem services. There is the Burren approach and we have done it for peatlands as well in the FarmPEAT project in the midlands. We are seen as European leaders on that, but the trouble is how to scale that to national level. We are scaling that at the moment through the ACRES co-operation project and we are having significant challenges from an implementation perspective with administration and IT systems to support that, but we have made a huge leap to pay 20,000 farmers within this hybrid, results-based, locally adapted payment model. We have to really resource that, ensure it works effectively and, within five years, make it available to all 134,000 farmers so they then have a system whereby they can get money for their food and their environmental service provision. Therefore, we can actually do this.

There are recommendations in the agriculture section to support national frameworks into local actions, put the systems in place for payment for ecosystem services, build on the models and systems we have out there and scale them. However, what this needs above all, and going back to the targets, is coherent policy. We need a vision for what we want our land use to look like in 2050. It is not just about a bit of a goal here for water and a goal here for climate. They all have to add up. We have to be able to paint a picture for an individual farm in Meath, Cork, Dublin, Mayo and Donegal so farmers can see what their farm will look like in 2050 if they follow what is needed.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

I thank Dr. Moran. I draw attention to the fact the specific recommendations members considered in detail are Nos. 74 to 90 that talk about specific actions farmers can take. Recommendation No. 78 states, "Public incentives and payments for farmers must not restrict them in their ambition to make change for the benefit of biodiversity." It is talking about the incentives currently in place, but if a farmer has ticked a box in one area, he or she cannot have that payment in another. That is not what the members of this assembly wanted to highlight. They wanted to pay and reward farmers for the good work they are doing. Something similar to the Action Plan for Jobs, where we saw we detailed parts of policies parsed out into key priorities and targets, would be a necessary step to take from these recommendations moving forward, for sure.

An Cathaoirleach

The expert on the Action Plan for Jobs is here. He will have some ideas. Does anybody else want to come in on that?

Professor Tasman Crowe

I will elaborate a little bit more on the way I see the intersection with climate change. There are three ways in which biodiversity and climate change and climate action intersect. We hear quite a lot about the important role of nature in climate mitigation in terms of forests, the oceans and other habitats absorbing carbon and taking it out of the atmosphere. That is an important space. The narrative needs to move strongly towards the adaptation space as well. The changes are coming. No matter what we do on mitigation, we are going to see changes. We are feeling them now. Nature has a very important role to play on our behalf in slowing down floodwaters, protecting the coast from storm surges and so on. In many places, that is being embraced. In Copenhagen, there is a climate adaptation plan that is built around funnelling water into the green spaces and making them rich sponges for absorbing rainwater flows and so on. We can benefit from nature in that way. The third intersection is, of course, that climate change is affecting nature and exacerbating many of the other pressures we put on the system. We have to recognise that, if we want nature to help us, we are going to have to help nature. We need climate adaptation that will benefit nature. That will also benefit us, in turn.

It is great to see the strength with which people are now responding to climate change. I refer to the climate action plan and public organisations being held to account in respect of a series of obligations now placed on them by the Government. That is being followed up on. The same could happen for biodiversity. They could sit on the same kind of footing. In a way, it is as important, or more important, to do that. The dependency is very strong.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

Mr. Joyce is one of our farming members of the citizens' assembly from June. Perhaps he could join in on that question.

Mr. Patrick Joyce

When the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, first came out, it was capped at 30,000 participants. With a bit of pushing and shoving, it went up to 36,000. I do not believe policymakers are taking this seriously. If they want to be serious about it, they should let it be open to everyone so that they can be paid for the work they do. They should make the funding available for the long term.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Is there a system for verification? Taxpayers will want to know that-----

Mr. Patrick Joyce

Yes. If it is based on the work they do, yes.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

On that, there was something specific that came out from the farmers who presented to the citizens' assembly. We tried to ensure we had as many diverse farming voices as possible. We had eight different organisations come in to address us. They all said that the schemes that are there should try to incorporate as many farmers as possible, if not all farmers, because all farmers can contribute to biodiversity and to curbing biodiversity loss. That is something that was then emphatically recommended by the members of this citizens' assembly. It was recommended that there be no restriction on the numbers and also that people should be rewarded for the work done. There is a lot of work under way at Teagasc to discuss the specific biodiversity markers we need to evolve as our understanding of biodiversity improves. A land use map is also going to be made for the country, which was a recommendation of this citizens' assembly, because what is happening in the environment in Wexford is obviously very different from what is happening in west Mayo. That is equally the case for the farming advice that should be given to farmers in those areas. It needs to be specific.

Mr. Patrick Joyce

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has to engage more with the farmers at grassroots level outside of just trying to penalise people. If you make one mistake on a form or anything else with regard to any of these schemes, your payments are held up. That is a nightmare for a lot of people. It needs to be more straightforward. The Department needs to engage with people on the ground.

An Cathaoirleach

Does that turn farmers off engaging with the schemes? In Mr. Joyce's experience, is it a real barrier to uptake?

Mr. Patrick Joyce

There are too many barriers. There are too many hoops to jump through. Farmers are frightened to go into many of these schemes.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

To back up Mr. Joyce's point, that is recommendation No. 76 considered by the members. Realising that farmers need support, it was recommended that there be local advisers in local areas, similar to what we saw in the Burren programme that Dr. Moran referenced and the biodiversity regeneration in a dairying environment, BRIDE, projects.

They are great templates for supporting farmers in doing work to support the environment. We would like to see that set up at scale. That is recommendation No. 76.

Dr. Mícheál Ó Cinnéide

If I can come back to a question from Deputy Bruton regarding some early wins to build confidence, I was thinking about this query in respect of this committee specifically having a role on legislation. I would pick out three issues that would fit this category of early wins. One is recommendation No. 21, which is that we have a new statutory national biodiversity action plan. We have had biodiversity plans since President Higgins was the Minister with responsibility. That was way back when we joined the Convention on Biological Diversity. Until now, all those plans have been non-statutory. In other words, they have been done on a voluntary basis, with few resources to back them. They plans were driven with a lot of goodwill by the National Parks and Wildlife Service but they were without teeth. If we compare that with the legal status of our climate action plan, the latter is much stronger. The next national biodiversity action plan is in the works and nearly completed. There has been a lot of consultation on it. This recommendation is calling for it to have statutory backing. It is doable and provided for now under the Wildlife Act 1976. It would be great if the committee recommended that the plan have statutory backing. That is very important. It would send a signal and build confidence, to use the Deputy's phrase.

The second aspect, which is also in the works, is on marine protected areas. I refer to recommendations Nos. 105 and 106. The Minister of State in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Malcolm Noonan, is preparing legislation on marine protected areas. The general scheme of the Bill has come out but not the details. Those are due in the next few months. This is another strong recommendation, and it has targets. The Deputy is correct that there are not many targets across the whole report, but we are basically reinforcing existing targets. In this case, there is one, which refers to 30% of our maritime area. This would be a second quick win, if the committee supported it. I know this has been spoken about before.

The third quick win concerns arterial drainage, which is recommendation No. 100. In a previous life many years ago, Deputy Bruton and Professor Frank Convery studied the effects of arterial drainage and its cost benefits. From that work up until today, it can be said that the cost benefit is something that, from a wider socioeconomic and environmental point of view, is questionable. The recommendation states clearly that the Arterial Drainage Act 1945, which gave great powers to the OPW back in a much different time, be reviewed, with inputs from the OPW, the EPA and the NPWS. If the State were just to start the process of formally commissioning that review, it would, admittedly, take some time but it absolutely needs to be done and the committee can recommend it.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Professor Frank Convery is still writing blogs on this topic, if Dr. Ó Cinnéide wishes to have a look.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I think nearly all my questions have been answered because Deputy Bruton got in with many of them. I thank the witnesses for coming in and for all the work they did. A great deal of work went into this report and it was a big sacrifice, especially for Ms Jones and Mr. Joyce. I thank them for all their efforts because it is important that their voices were part of this debate.

I have one query and I direct it to Ms Jones and Mr. Joyce. Is there a lot of confusion from an agricultural perspective? My sense is that there is and that the majority of farmers do not really know what is expected of them. They know change is needed and they can understand why but they may not necessarily know what they are meant to be doing. Do Ms Jones and Mr. Joyce find that this is an issue when they are talking to people in their communities?

Mr. Patrick Joyce

Yes, and there is also division among the different sectors. We asked for support many years ago in the tillage, suckler herd and sheep sectors but we still did not get it. Those farmers then sold up and went into the dairy sector. This is why there is now a groundwater problem. There is too much emphasis on the dairy sector. I have nothing against dairy farmers. Policymakers made this problem and now they must get together. We produced this report when 99 of us came together. Legislators are being paid much more than us and should be able to do much more in this regard.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

That is fair enough.

Ms Anne Jones

I will refer to what we found over the time we had, which was relatively short for the scale of what we were trying to deliver.

There is a lot of misinformation and mixed information out there among the farming community, and wider than the farming community. In some way there has to be public or sectoral information, whether that is through websites, campaigns or whatever. Information needs to go out there. The word "biodiversity" is not really in the vocabulary of farmers; it represents what they have to do in order to comply with other things they are doing. I mention buffer zones, for instance. I have heard anecdotally that this is not something farmers are worried about and that they have questioned why they should establish them. Farmers have suggested that buffer zones could be this width or that width, depending on where the watercourse is located. There is a lot of information to be provided and the committee has a responsibility to ensure that information reaches the right people.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

I want to come in on that and to specifically highlight recommendation No. 80, that the members wanted community leadership and for peer-to-peer support to be a real part of farming. From the farmers who presented to us we heard that a lot of them care deeply about the wildlife and nature on their land, and a lot of them were making investments off their own bat because they knew they would get a return for it. What came across strongly was that the types of discussion groups that happen organically or naturally with farmers are that five or six of them get together regularly and talk about practice and about evolving their practice, and sometimes they employ an adviser. If we saw that across the scale then these messages would be far more clear and would get across an awful lot better. Something the assembly did really well, which is part of deliberative democracy, was to have dialogue. You had people at a table with incredibly different views but they were respectful of each other's views and they had time to talk to each other. What we hear a lot in media are people from the extremes with no space for dialogue or problem solving. We need to have people in rooms for a little bit of time in order for that trust to build, and that is where we will see the solution.

Another consistent message was that a lot of trust has been broken. Previous policies really emphasised farmers doing one thing and they see a U-turn now and they have not necessarily felt that they had been given forewarning for it. We must communicate these messages well. We must communicate why farmers are being asked to do something. One of our speakers gave us a great anecdote about this, because farmers are self-employed for a reason; they do not want someone telling them what to do. However, if you can explain to anybody who owns land why it is relevant and worthwhile for them to do something then they will come about that decision themselves, but you have to convince their head, heart and pocket. That was the analogy we heard and you will see that coming across clearly in the recommendations. That is what the members took strongly from what we heard from farmers and from the people from farming communities at the table in the assembly.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I want to take that to the level of ACRES with Dr. Moran. Is it the case that ACRES could be scaled up if the finances were put into it? Could the ACRES model be scaled up to a national level if the funding was there or are there still elements of ACRES that could do with being refined and changed?

Dr. James Moran

There are two fundamentally different approaches within ACRES. There is an ACRES general approach, which is similar to what we have had in previous action-based agri-environment schemes, which is a list of prescriptions with some results-based payment in it but it does not have the local supports in it. Then we have what we would call a different co-operation ACRES model. In that there is a local area plan for the eight areas that are drawn up. Within that there are scoring and verification systems for payments for nature, water and climate integrated together, and then there are supporting actions where the score is low to increase the payment. It is quite a sophisticated model, therefore. That model needs an awful lot of capacity to be built and there have been challenges in whether we have the advisory capacity and knowledge to do this. If we were to scale that then we should be dividing the country into somewhere in the region of not just eight areas, but in terms of the diversity of the land base of the country we have somewhere in the region of anything from 50 to 25 different areas where we would require local area plans. These would then co-ordinate the actions in terms of the water framework directive and climate action as they relate to agriculture.

There will be a local support office to co-ordinate this action that would take responsibility and take away a lot of the paperwork for the farmers, and then within that, through the advisory services that facilitate local action on each individual farm, they would capture the complexity but have their own simplified plan and list of payments and supports that would be available on an individual farm-by-farm basis. From a governance perspective, that sounds very complex but we have the capacity to do this in the next three or four years. We have worked in the past 12 months in particular around the IT issues with the Irish Centre for High-End Computing. There is a Terrain-AI centre, funded by SFI, that uses remote sensing and satellite information that can capture an awful lot of information, distil it down into web portals and information systems that can be managed by the centralised team and then give clear messages to the individual farmers on the ground who know they do X, Y and Z on this part and they can earn this amount of income from it or pay for this or mitigate this. The model is there. We are scaling it now to 20,000. I do not think we could have scaled it beyond that this time because of capacity and administrative issues but if we scale that now, make it work on these 20,000, while at the same time have a parallel process of development to develop our IT support infrastructures, co-ordinating and feeding into a coherence policy, by the time the next CAP cycle rolls out in 2027 we will be ready to scale this across the country. However, it requires that level of advanced thinking. The problem with the CAP is that we never plan it until we get our legislative framework from Brussels, which is always very late because the Commission, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers have to agree. We should perhaps plan in advance of that and influencing what the framework should be to facilitate us to do this. We are Europe. We do not need to wait for Europe to make the framework. We ensure the framework facilitates what we need to do to make this nation prosperous and to secure an environment quality for the next generation.

I believe we can do this. I know what I have just said sounds immensely complex, but we are in a crisis. When we respond to crises like we did with Covid, we can respond as one of the best in the world. We must have confidence in our abilities to take these 159 recommendations and apply them across different sectors. In agriculture, we have to do this for the future of our food security and in order that future generations are able to survive on the planet. I believe we can do this, not without challenges, but as the previous speaker said, we have to come away from the rhetoric of conflict that is in this and build trust to work on this together.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I thank Dr. Moran very much. I will ask another question. Sometimes we say we cannot do something because it is Europe's competency and we deflect and we say it is too hard and that it is something that can only happen at a European level. That has also been a flaw over the years in regard to the marine. For example, because quotas are dictated at a European level, that has prevented us from making changes to how we fish and what we fish. I know the marine protected areas, MPA, legislation is going through and we need to see it progress more quickly. Is there anything else that we can do because some fisheries methods are incredibly damaging, both from a carbon and climate perspective and from a biodiversity perspective? What can we do as a nation to mitigate and adapt those kind of measures?

Professor Tasman Crowe

I would bring that back to the MPA process. That is going to be a substantial vehicle for developing appropriate measures to decide what should be allowed to take place in protected areas and what should not, depending on what they are designated to protect. It needs that level of dialogue. The Deputy is right; there is a challenge in engaging with the European framework. The Common Fisheries Policy has very high standing in the regulatory processes of what goes on in our marine environment so that is part of the challenge, but the roll-out of the marine protected areas under national legislation is a significant step. Depending on the final shape of that legislation, we will have the opportunity to do things differently in Ireland than with the dictates of the habitats directive and the birds directive. That will give us the opportunity to establish those dialogues, to look to the evidence base and to collate and bring that to bear.

We can then start to make decisions in a well-justified, reasoned way about what should and should not be allowed to take place in areas we are trying to conserve.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

It is a matter of trying to speed up those-----

Professor Tasman Crowe

Yes, absolutely.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

Eight specific recommendations were made by assembly members on marine and coastal environments. Professor Crowe referenced many of them when he talked about marine protection areas. Assembly members also recommended that the State should create a national marine biodiversity co-ordination body to have responsibility for MPAs and to make sure we achieve good environmental status within that. There are then many discussions to be had on fishing zones and biodiversity net gain in any developments that are in marine and coastal environments.

If we are talking about a national marine biodiversity co-ordination centre, I draw attention to recommendation No. 24, which references a national independent agency that would oversee all the centralised biodiversity actions. One thing we heard consistently across all the reports over the whole ten months was that biodiversity falls between the cracks. It is in one wing of one Department but is actually a central part of two other Departments' work. While we ask an awful lot of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, and it has had reviews and additional funding, it does not have the strength to require other agencies and Departments to do certain work. It was very emphatic from assembly members that a strengthened, independent agency would act as a centralised biodiversity co-ordinating structure. That goes back to Deputy Bruton's question on what the first thing is we should do. It is to make this a priority and, with that, add the structures that will allow it to be a priority across government.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Those quick wins are very important, not just to build trust but because we are in a crisis. We have to get the balance right between having a robust process that may take time and something that achieves immediately. We need those measures.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I thank the witnesses. Many of the questions have been addressed. We have gone over the five minutes. I appreciate all our guests coming and giving their time. It is an incredible document and shows what happens through deliberative democracy. When people hear the evidence base, they come to very progressive conclusions. When we met Dr. Ní Shúilleabháin previously, she talked about the importance of having that balance of rural, urban and farmers represented at the citizens' assembly.

One of the questions I will ask, which she just touched on, relates to the fragmentation of the biodiversity issue across different Departments. The Minister and committee responsible for it also have one of the biggest crises facing the country, namely, the housing crisis. Many members of that committee, and I do not mean any disrespect, are so consumed by that issue they cannot give biodiversity the time and respect it requires. Dr. Ní Shúilleabháin has addressed that issue. Does she think biodiversity needs to be given that dedicated Department and ministerial responsibility so that the buck stops with somebody and a committee can give it the time that is needed?

My other question is around the issue of constitutional changes. The importance of the right to a clean, healthy and safe environment was touched on. I am very interested in parts c and d of that recommendation, and giving nature rights for its own intrinsic value that would have standing in legal cases. I am interested in hearing the views of Ms Jones and Mr. Joyce, as members of the citizens' assembly, on how they came to give that recommendation. Why do the other panellists think that is something we should give very strong consideration to?

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

I will answer the first question on fragmentation. As I said, it was a permanent theme across all the presentations to members of the assembly. If we look at the recommendations that reference a strategic approach, which was mentioned by the Senator, the members of the assembly recommended that a senior ministerial position with an associated department have responsibility for biodiversity. Within that, considerations could probably be made. As we have a Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, would biodiversity be better placed there rather than under natural heritage? I wanted to refer to recommendation No. 22 and, with that, a cross-party, standing Oireachtas committee, which this committee very much is. It is about emphasising that government structures should highlight the priority of biodiversity by giving it those senior roles and emphasising it. That was something assembly members highlighted in many of the discussions.

On the rights of nature, and I will pass over to Ms Jones and Mr. Joyce on that as well, this was something we had not necessarily planned for when considering our talks and presentations for the members of the assembly but after the very first meeting, members started to come to me as chair saying they would like to hear a little more about rights, including the right for us to have a clean environment and the rights of nature. With that, we invited Professor Áine Ryall from University College Cork, UCC, who is one of the international experts in this area. She spoke to members about this but it was interesting that the theme had come up in many other conversations, such as those with Professor Robert Watson and Professor Jane Stout. We heard from a lot of different people about it. It was interesting to hear that nature is garnering rights in other jurisdictions and other countries whereby, similar to a business having a board of directors, an element of nature might too. What I wanted to emphasise here is that the reasoning for it was to make sure nature was still there to protect and provide for us. Considering this element of the constitutional amendment, it was about us not depending on it and then it would disappear but that we would protect it in that regard.

Ms Anne Jones

I think it was around the interconnectedness of humans and the land or nature and that if humans have rights, then perhaps we should think about whether we have a right to disturb nature in the interests of progress or whatever. I had never really given the matter much consideration until it arose and, as Dr. Ní Shúilleabháin said, it arose naturally when people raised the question. I would be of the view now that perhaps we should at least think about that. I do not know how Mr. Joyce feels.

Mr. Patrick Joyce

As humans, it is our right to protect biodiversity. I will not say any more than that. That is all I can say on it.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

I was very surprised when it arose and then very surprised with the numbers that actually voted for it. I spoke to the UN in April as part of Mother Earth Day and I was blown away by the number of conversations happening in other countries around this already. It is not something on which Ireland would be reinventing the wheel. We would just be joining conversations that are happening elsewhere.

Senator Lynn Boylan

We had a history with having a rights-based legal system in our country so it would be going back to what we originally had. I have one or two more short questions. I was particularly struck by what Dr. Ní Shúilleabháin said about the very polarised debates that are taking place within the media. The media have a job to do. They have to get viewership and some would say there is a clickbait element to certain debates. Our public broadcaster has been in the media for the entire summer. It has a responsibility, over commercial media, to tease out those issues and to not always go for that polarising aspect, such as about culling the herd. All these things are very simple sound bites but are very hurtful to people who feel they are being attacked if it is their industry. It is not that simple and we need to start having those conversations and - I will not say educating because that sounds patronising - informing and having the sort of deliberative discussions the witnesses had in the citizens' assembly. It is the responsibility of our public broadcaster in particular to serve that function and allow those debates to take place so people do not feel they are being attacked but are part of a process of change.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

I would draw attention to this fact because it came up in a lot of the conversations. Public engagement and public education are a huge part of this. Recommendations Nos 55, 56 and 57 specifically talk about the public engagement part of it, that is, that we as a public should be encouraged to live in a way that reduces our impact on biodiversity loss and requires us to have further conversations about it, such as the benefits of buying local, the benefits of seasonal produce, the benefits of organic or the benefits of having less plastic. That is a pollutant, which is another key driver of biodiversity loss. Those recommendations are specifically there for public awareness campaigns so the State can be a driver in using the public as a key instrument in this. Looking at what is in place already, there are things like the national pollinator plan, which is something individuals can do. Local authorities and local communities are key here. Great progress has been made with biodiversity officers in local authorities.

I believe 25 positions have been created with six to go, which is great progress. Those biodiversity officers become key in that education role across local authorities, so there is lots of scope there. Perhaps we need less debate and more dialogue about it.

An Cathaoirleach

That is a very interesting question. It is not just the media; politicians are all part of this as well and ultimately policy gets decided here. We get pulled in different directions every day, depending on the narratives that circulate on that particular day. With this challenge, probably more than any other, we have to deal with misinformation. Dr. Ní Shúilleabháin and Dr. Moran referred earlier to the rhetoric, the false narratives and the challenge of building trust. Is this simply dispelled by good communication campaigns from the Government or is more needed? It is a pervasive challenge. Did the assembly get into misinformation, disinformation and the polarisation of debate that ultimately infests politics and makes it very hard to make progress?

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

We spoke about it quite broadly. Recommendations 55 to 65 in section 1.8 really cover that because we spoke about formal education all the way through, from the importance of the nature table all the way up to further education, community education and the modules people can take at night. Recommendation 59 states that there should be mandatory and ongoing biodiversity training for any civil or public servant whose work affects wildlife and biodiversity. There are plenty of webinars and MOOCs out there already. All the universities have vice presidents for sustainability. There are far more lifelong learning elements to all of this. It was certainly something we spoke about. There are initiatives that could be done quite quickly, like the Green Schools initiative and the biodiversity flag, which tends to be one of the last ones they do. Could it be brought up further up in the line? Could we use local parks and public amenities a bit more as education spaces as we see in other countries? A State agency, such as the NPWS, could highlight that specific part of public engagement known as citizen science, where people can get involved in these elements as they already do with BirdWatch Ireland, etc. People love being involved in saying "I saw this bird" or "I saw this creature". All of that contributes to public engagement and education. There are ten specific actions that talk about public engagement and education.

An Cathaoirleach

What about the vested interests challenge? Even within farming, there are competing interests and it is very hard to get a single position or a way forward. There are even more competing interests in politics. I am sure the different farming organisations gave the assembly a different view on what the right way forward is. There is quite a difference between the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association and the IFA, which might broadly represent a larger and more mainstream cohort. Unless we get buy-in from farming generally, tackle vested interests - they are not just in farming, as it is only one example - dispel the false narratives and have an honest debate about what is happening and what is required, it will be very hard to make any inroads in this area. What do the witnesses think about this? Perhaps it is for Mr. Joyce or Ms Jones to tell us what they think because their perspective is that of ordinary citizens who, prior to becoming involved in the citizens' assembly, would have been at the mercy of these tropes, arguments and narratives. I presume their perspectives might have changed based on the presentations the assembly heard and the discussions it had. I would be very interested to hear their take.

Ms Anne Jones

We learned an awful lot as citizens in the course of all of the talks, lectures, people's stories and community activities. It certainly made us far more aware. I do not think I was ever as aware, and I would be conscious of most things that are going on. Certainly, the citizens' assembly discussions really brought that to the fore. As I said in the beginning piece, one of the biggest difficulties is changing ingrained mindsets. Changing mindsets that have been working in the same way over the years and the decades is a difficult thing to do. It is in all of us who come from a rural background. How to turn that around into something different is a real challenge in terms of public information and awareness campaigns.

I do not think there is any choice. It has to be done because time is not on our side. One thinks of programmes in primary schools like Green Schools and education at student level but by the time that all of that comes to making a difference, we do not have that time on our hands. It will help by all means but it will not change in the immediate term. What we have to focus on is how to change that, and on getting out of the mindset that we have done these things in this particular way all through the years, so why should we change now for biodiversity, or whatever. The importance of it cannot be overstated because we just will not have a planet. We look at all the things that are happening in the world from forest fires to droughts and floods, and even the damage that is doing in itself in the context of climate change. We have a phenomenal task ahead of us but like the document says, it is possible to do many things. Some of the actions that we have pointed to will help in that regard.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

I would like to come in on this. Something that citizens' assemblies have done really well in Ireland is to start the kitchen table conversations. That is really where the conversations need to happen. Yes, a lot happens on our main media, social media, online, etc., and obviously there is always a reticence to changing the status quo. Having those conversations at the kitchen table is really where minds get changed. I was very much reminded of that during the discussions in the plenary sessions of the citizens' assembly, where ten people were sitting around a table with absolutely differing views but managed to come to a consensus. It was really lovely to see. Not everybody agreed at the end of it either but it was a majority consensus. It was democracy at play. Citizens' assemblies start the kitchen table conversations.

I would like to remind everybody that the 99 members came to this way of thinking in ten months. All of those talks and resources are online at the citizens' assembly website. It is fabulous to go back and review them. I have done it a couple of times, looking at specific ten-minute and 15-minute talks, and there is a lot there. It is about having dialogue and conversations, which we do really well in Ireland.

Mr. Patrick Joyce

I was the same. I was inspired listening to Robert Watson and Jane Goodall. As a farmer, I love getting up in the morning and doing what I do, producing good food and whatever. I need to protect my livelihood as well, so that has to be brought into consideration. I do not want to be just involved in environmental schemes. I like to work with animals and produce, and that has to continue as well.

Dr. James Moran

To mirror what has happened in the citizens' assembly with 99 citizens, and what members are deliberating on now regarding the recommendations in this committee, we need some way to have a national civil dialogue on how we interact with the environment in general, on climate, nature and water, and where we are going with this. This would be a vital thing to happen in the next 12 months. I know we are going to have a big civil dialogue with elections over the next 12 to 24 months. In that space, I said last week in a private conversation that it is like we have a full moon all the time in an election year. It is not the time for a civil dialogue, and it will get more polarised during that.

Once the election cycle is finished and we are at the start of a new one, there will be an opportune time during the programme for Government negotiations. Something could be set up in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications to allow, in parallel, a national civil dialogue, including communication and information campaigns around such things as climate, biodiversity and water. Perhaps not a lot would come out of it but it would take some of the heat out of the situation after the election cycle and after all the misinformation and polarisation that will happen as part of the cut and thrust of the coming time. That will set us back a while so we need a response like that. I do not know how it could be done but one thing we have learned from the citizens' assembly is that when people sit down together with a respectful attitude, much can be achieved in a relatively short period.

Ms Anne Jones

There is also an issue of focus. To get 99 of us into a room and keep us focused was a serious challenge but that needs to happen for results to come out at the other end.

An Cathaoirleach

It is a serious challenge even at this committee. Does Dr. Ó Cinnéide wish to come in?

Dr. Mícheál Ó Cinnéide

I will come in briefly. On the whole question of the debate, if one thinks of where we are now compared with where we were last October, when we had the day with the farmers, we seem to be in a different place. It seems now to be more adversarial, as Senator Boylan mentioned. I will refer to page 82 in the assembly report. One of the speakers from whom we heard was Ms Aideen McGloin from the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association. Her words are summarised in the report and she made an awful lot of sense. All of the people from the farming organisations adopted a slightly different approach on the day. They were not confrontational and it was not the kind of debate we have seen in recent weeks and months. Ms McGloin made one simple and important comment, which was that farmers follow policy. That is also what Mr. Joyce said earlier.

This committee will in the coming weeks get responses from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to the recommendations in respect of agriculture. It will be interesting to see what approach the Department takes. One approach we might expect is defensive and minimalist, with backs to the wall and not giving an inch, etc. That has been the tone of much of what has gone on in recent times. A different approach is what people here are talking about. We are taking about a more all-of-government approach that takes the environment, water, the climate and so on into the heart of agricultural policy. We should look out for the signals that are coming back from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We may challenge it a little more, if necessary, and try to set a tone that urges working together. It is a challenge for the committee and the Departments but it is doable.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I thank all the witnesses for their work on the comprehensive document and report, which is very well articulated. To continue in a similar vein, it is now about taking the great work of the assembly and putting it into a complicated and messy political system that pulls in a pile of different directions. I have said before that we could raise questions about the representativeness of this group. We could reasonably suggest that a number of Members would take a different approach to the witnesses and to the process of citizens' assemblies and the notion of deliberative democracy. We should take none of that for granted. However, for those of us who want to see strong ambition and progress, the question is how we move this on. We have touched on some of those issues. It is like "Father Ted" and asking if there is anything to be said for another mass. Is there anything to be said for a citizens' assembly on the future of Irish farming or a vision for Irish agriculture?

We have some experience of trying to create forums or spaces for dialogues between different stakeholders and they have not always been positive. There are examples where there was no agreement and where one sector walked away in the end for legitimate reasons. We need to look at how we create the space for reasoned and sensible conversations in this regard.

I would welcome the delegates' thoughts on that. There is obviously power at play. We can do the education piece but there are powerful interests at play that will not be addressed through education. Some of what I hear is honestly a risk and concern. I believe Mr. Joyce mentioned what the future holds, future viability and future income. Dr. Ní Shúilleabháin talked about speaking to the head, the heart and the pocket. My sense is that, in many cases, we do not do that. Take the current nitrates directive conversation, for example. The proposal in this regard represents a cliff edge for certain cohorts. Is there a case to be made for the State de-risking this transition? What do the delegates' believe a safety net might look like? We know the end point and that a new model of the economy, agriculture, transport and industry must be attuned to the climate and be biodiversity friendly, but the pathway is really where the question is at. The risk is that if we cannot address that, we will not get where we want and fall midstream. Have the delegates some ideas on the deliberative spaces or safe spaces for real conversations and on de-risking the transition for all involved?

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

Those are not easy questions.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

Sorry for rambling.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

I might take up the first point the Deputy made, on representativeness. I have heard from different pockets of people the question of how representative this citizens' assembly is. We must remind ourselves that this was one of the first citizens' assemblies that invited households across Ireland. You did not have to be on the electoral register. In this regard, the citizens' assembly was one of the most encompassing. It brought in communities that would not necessarily have engaged with the electoral system traditionally. The 99 members who came across were chosen based on CSO statistics. We had so many between 18 and 24 and so many above 65, and we had people who came to Ireland from other countries, including a Ukrainian. We had a member of the Traveller community and a leaving certificate student, and there were people who were unemployed and those who may have had literacy issues, but we were engaging with them in different ways. In that regard, I am quite confident we had a quite representative snapshot of society in the room.

I want to highlight the fact that in Ireland we take 99 people, with the chair as the 100th member, to represent our population of, let us say, 5 million. France has a population of 64 million and its citizens' assemblies, which feed into its policy work, are made up of 150 people. Therefore, we are actually more representative.

Sometimes I have heard the accusation that assembly members are not elected. I remind everyone, including ourselves, that all we have come up with here is a blueprint that we suggest elected representatives of the Oireachtas, including members of this committee, might like to consider. We have no power otherwise. This is just another element. It is like the fourth leg of a three-legged stool with elected representatives, our Civil Service and other engaged stakeholders that always contribute to policymaking. A citizens' assembly is just adding to that. In Ireland, we can be really proud that we do deliberative democracy really well. Many nations look to us in that regard. I just wanted to talk about the representativeness of our citizens' assembly.

Moving this forward and talking about the transition, it is also important to say that some agencies, groups, communities and elements of Departments have already considered these recommendations and said they should be doing what is involved.

They have gone ahead and started to work on elements of it. It is not necessarily the case that this will require a movement of everyone to come on board with thinking we need to address the problem of biodiversity loss. It is widely accepted that we need to do it and now we can talk about the structural policy issues.

One aspect we have not touched on very much is NGOs. We heard a lot from NGOs working with the environment, including many voluntary groups working to conserve rivers, traditional Irish animals such as the wild goat and so on. They are doing great work. They, including people such as Mr. Joyce, are doing it because they love it and have an interest in nature, but they are not necessarily being supported strategically and their work is not being recorded. It is uncategorised. No one oversees it. We could definitely be doing that, helping this transition by co-ordinating and documenting the work that is already going on.

There is also a lot in the recommendations relating to urban planning and design, including the importance of green spaces for those of us who live in towns and cities. Community gardens are hugely important. We saw throughout the Covid-19 pandemic how necessary it is for public health and well-being that we have access to green spaces. All those issues are part of the transition the Deputy spoke about. It is important to note that.

Industries and motivating the private sector are referenced in the recommendations. Private sector companies are already going towards it in their consideration of environment, social and governance, ESG, issues. They are all trying to tick that box in order to say they are working for the environment and society. A lot is already happening.

The conversations that need to happen to move everyone else forward will be complex. We must remind ourselves that we rely on the nature not only to provide food, but for ecosystem services such as water purification, pollination - one in every three bites of food we take depends on a pollinator - photosynthesis, carbon sequestration and climate regulation. Those are all part of the ecosystem services we depend on. We have probably not focused on that enough in our public conversations. We need to consider it now as another element of nature that we depend on and that we depend on farmers for. We have to bring that in as part of the transition.

I was watching a nature programme with my children at home. We were looking at trees being torn down in another part of the world and listening to David Attenborough talking about it. My four-year-old said, "Mum, we do not do that in Ireland, do we? We look after our nature". I told him that we do not do a great job at the moment, but we will so he does not need to worry about it. When we are talking and thinking about this transition, we have to remember that we are the old fogies. We have to put the structures and supports in place for the generation after us that already cares and is depending on us to do this work. Yes, difficult discussions need to happen. We need to think about structuring, resourcing and so forth. A swell of movement is coming behind us. It is incumbent on us now to ensure we do not leave them to fall off a ledge.

Dr. James Moran

I will speak about the risks for and concerns about what the future holds. We have to go back to the idea of head, heart and pocket. First, as regards the head, we must understand that the risk of not changing and not getting to where we need to get on climate biodiversity is not the destruction of the planet; it is the destruction of our civilisation. We must get it clear in our heads that business as usual, our current trajectory, is a cliff edge. We have seen this on the water side. We have travelled that road already. What has happened with nitrates is an indication of what will happen if we do not clearly communicate what is needed, have a vision for what is beyond the cliff edge and resource how to get there. We cannot keep repeating that situation. That is one thing. We must be clear in our heads.

With respect to our hearts, if society at large understands that everyone who is setting the policy and vision wants to get somewhere better and is not simply lining pockets, people will get behind it. To convince the heart, we must convince people that the right thing is being done. Fundamentally as Irish people we have a connection with the land. Most of us are only three or four generations removed from it at most. It has been instilled in us culturally that we should hand the land on in a better state. That is the heart piece.

People must be convinced that what we are doing now will be handing things on to the next generation in a better state. We need to be clear about where we are going to go with that.

One of the big issues is that we must realise that when we change, for people who are doing very well at the moment and who hold power, that power situation will change and people will lose out and will not be in the same positions they are in the current model. There needs to be a more equal model. People who are at the top end of society and who are maybe the richest and hold the most power and influence will have to let go of some of that and share some of that resourcing. We must recognise that as well.

As policymakers and politicians, members must be aware of those risks as well. It is a bigger challenge for developing countries and countries with more inequality than others. The more you have, the more inequality we seem to have but we need to address that.

We must be honest. In the new system there will be people who will lose out, or who will not be as wealthy or hold as much power as they do now. Then it comes back to the pocket and the State de-risking this transition.

The State has to take more of a guiding hand in this. We cannot freely leave things to the market. I do not subscribe to any one economic model and I think there are lots of things in the various economic models that would work. We have to find a new system that works, given the current reality. The State has to take a guiding hand in this in terms of regulation, better enforcement, incentives, and also revenue raising and taxation to resource this. Again, revenue raising and taxation will take money from people's pockets but it should be from where it can be afforded and that transition should be resourced.

It comes back to the heart. For people to accept this, they must be sure and be convinced that by relinquishing some of this power and this resource and sharing it more equally, there will be a better society for their children in 30 or 40 years' time. I know what I have just said is very pie in the sky and may be wishful thinking. When we have a disaster and things are wiped out, like after World War II, we had that sort of thinking in Europe after that crisis. I seriously hope we do not have to get to that level of destruction before we rebuild again. I think we are close to that level of destruction and the planet is giving us enough warning signs that we should be trying to act now.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I thank Dr. Moran.

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome Deputy Paul Murphy who has just come from his party's think-in, so I hope it went well.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Apologies I could not be at the meeting earlier but I read the opening statement and followed as much of the meeting as I could. First, I thank the witnesses for their work and for the work of the citizens' assembly. It is really vital if we are to avoid the kind of cliff edge that was spoken about, that we need drastic change to avoid a sixth mass extinction event which would have a devastating impact on human civilisation.

I will start with understanding how we got here. The science is clear, and has been so for quite a while in terms of the ecological crises we face. Therefore, we have not gotten here because we did not know enough. Sometimes, people who are opposed to taking action on the biodiversity or climate crises like to say, "Well, we have to bring the people with us", the implication being that the people are kind of slow or foot-dragging on these issues and have to be persuaded and brought along, etc. From the experience of the citizens' assembly, when the people, or a representative sample of the people, were presented with the evidence, what we learned was that the people are in favour of doing what is necessary. Understandably, it makes sense that the people are in favour of doing what is necessary to avoid biodiversity crisis and to get on top of it. That is quite clear, is it not?

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

It was a very diverse group of people. There were people from all walks of life and some of those did not necessarily always believe there was a crisis. It was a very much evidence-based work programme and I was very impressed and surprised, if I am honest, that the people in the room interrogated everything they were told.

It was not that any one speaker could come in and give us the statistics without being interrogated on why that aspect was discussed, where the numbers came from and, behind that, what were the underlying issues. The assembly process requires and facilitates that the people in the room get to interrogate everything they are told and then get twice as much time to discuss it in their groups and ask questions about it. That is key. It is not that anyone accepted at face value what was happening. They had a multitude of presentations and a diversity of perspectives and interrogated them.

Deputy Paul Murphy

The assembly concluded, and I agree, that the State has failed to protect biodiversity. Why has it failed? Fundamentally, it is because there are interest groups, alluded to by Dr. Moran, whose short-term interest is not to deal with these crises. In the long term, if all humanity is wiped out, even the rich are affected by the biodiversity crisis, but it is not in their lifetime. In this country, regarding the nitrates derogation there is a small, relatively rich section of dairy farmers and a big agrifood industry whose interests are not to do what is necessary. Is the influence of agrifood and big dairy farmers having a negative impact on the ability of the State to do what is necessary to address the biodiversity crisis?

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

The Deputy will see in the first two recommendations that members emphatically agreed the State has not done enough to prevent biodiversity loss and needs to do more. Successive governments have not taken this as a priority. There is likely a multitude of reasons. It is likely that people did not understand enough and that we have accepted at face value we have this beautiful countryside and will always have it. There is also a lack of understanding. I was one of those people looking outside on my drive home to Mayo saying it is beautiful and green and everything is fine.

Much of what is required is information, discussion and dialogue, as we have been saying. What we did well in the assembly and what needs to be considered further in policy actions is diversity of voices. For example, in our agricultural section we had scientists and representatives of State agencies, and then I went to the ploughing championships and invited eight farming associations, all with a different perspective. They each came, had an equal amount of time and contributed to the work and considerations of the assembly: the organic farmers association, the grain growers association, Talamh Beo, Macra na Feirme, the ICSA, the ICMSA, IFA and the hill and Natura farmers. Everybody was there and got to say something. Mr. Joyce may want to talk further on this as he is a small farmer from the west of Ireland. Such diversity and differing perspectives are key to deliberative democracy and could inform policies going forward.

The Deputy mentioned the agrifood industry. The members of the assembly want to highlight the industry has a necessary role in contributing to biodiversity gain, conservation and restoration because its people are the ones who depend on our environment being in a good state. That is in recommendation 43. Something the assembly and the deliberative democracy process do well is including that diversity of voices. This is a time for change. People are starting to consider the state of the environment and what we need to do to move forward. It is to be hoped the State, and committee members as representatives of it, can move this forward.

Professor Tasman Crowe

I think the Deputy is alluding to short-term thinking having got us into this mess. People are tending to think on the short-term horizon. That was a theme that came up quite strongly through many of the discussions and deliberations. One of the early addresses we had was on being a good ancestor and the Native American principle of thinking about how a decision will affect the seventh generation hence, rather than just about the immediate timeframe. That message was important and resonated through many of the discussions. One where it was particularly tangible to me in a current context was the agricultural incentive frameworks, which tend to be quite short term.

It is asking farmers to make quite substantial changes to their practice in farming and saying they will get rewarded for the next five years for making this investment, time, and effort. It became clear to me that some of those incentive schemes need to have a longer time horizon and a guarantee of payments for a longer period that transcends the term of a single Government. That requires a significant change in the philosophy going forward.

I come back to the Deputy's point about the enthusiasm of the citizens. He is absolutely right. That was really very striking, especially through a process where there is that discussion and information. People very quickly became very passionate about the whole thing and wanted to make a difference. There is a big groundswell of that enthusiasm out there so I reiterate that push towards providing support and encouragement to community groups. An awful lot of people are very actively trying to do things and they are running into difficulties rather than encouragement and facilitation. That should not be underestimated going forward and the value of supporting them.

The final point I make is a reminder of the Children and Young People’s Assembly on Biodiversity Loss that took place in parallel with this one. There were very powerful advocates in that age bracket when they came and shared some of their perspectives with us. Their recommendations were much more radical than ours in many cases. We have alluded to this already but there is a real push for change across the sides.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Related to that, one of their recommendations was the idea of the rights of nature and specifically about nature being treated as our relative, which is a good way of thinking about it. This relates to the understanding that humanity is a part of nature and that a rift has been opened up between humanity and nature that needs to be overcome. The concept of rights of nature is a potentially very important one. There is a lot to be learned in terms of the indigenous understanding of the relationship between humanity and nature and how that is reflected. It is something our committee will need to work on because having the right wording in the Constitution that gives procedural but also substantive rights of nature could potentially be very important. Could the witnesses expand on that? Some people might wonder how nature could have rights and how and by whom they would be exercised and how they could be complementary to the idea of a human right to a clean environment, safe living space, and a future for our children and grandchildren and so on.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

We spoke about this a little earlier but just to reiterate, the conversation around the rights of nature was something that members brought to me from the beginning of the work. It emerged from presentations that were given around global biodiversity, the necessity of biodiversity, and the links between human health and biodiversity. With that, members began to come to me as chair to say they would like to hear more about this. As we went through it, we invited Professor Áine Ryall, who is an international expert from University College Cork, and she gave a great presentation, which I recommend people look back over. It is on the citizens' assembly website. The first point was to emphasis that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a UN-declared human right. That was the first thing members of the assembly wanted to highlight and emphasise as potentially something we have taken for granted and which is worth considering for bringing into the Constitution. A second element of that was whether we should have a right to degrade or damage nature, and that became part of the conversation. We learned of other places around the world where nature is already being protected, such as in New Zealand and Spain, of other countries that have already brought this into their constitutions, and of conversations that are happening across Europe. It is something in which members were very interested and it naturally emerged from the conversations of the assembly. Again, it was part of the learning process to always try to incorporate the thinking of members and where they are going with that but it was quite surprising how many members voted to support it. That is something worth considering by this committee.

Professor Tasman Crowe

To chip in there, this is not an area I am familiar with but one of the members of the expert advisory group who is expert was Dr. Mary Dobbs. It is clear this is a subject that is exercising the committee and I can appreciate that because there is a lot to take on. We ended up with quite a lot of discussion while people tried to get their heads around it. Dr. Dobbs was very informative in helping people to understand how that might fit and land.

I would suggest she may be approached for some comment. She was quick to emphasise one thing in particular, which was the fear that nature would suddenly have more rights than people and those rights would prevent people from doing what they want to do. She was quick to point out that nature's rights would not trump the rights we have as people but they would become part of the discussion. That was the gist, as I understood it.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

Related to that is recommendation 27 on page 16, which the members of this assembly also recommended, that in addition to recent developments in judicial structures in environment and planning, the State would develop an environmental court at Circuit and District Court levels. That kind of responds to the same question. One of the elements we have spoken a lot about and which came up as a huge theme across the work of the assembly was the enforcement of laws, which is difficult to do in a court system where there is so much else and there are a lot of priorities. This was to follow the idea in a lot of other countries that there is this developed environmental court wing. We are developing that now at High Court level, I believe. However, the members of the assembly also wanted to ensure we had the ability to do that at Circuit and District Court levels. One of the particular presentations we had was from a heritage officer. She asked the question, who do you call? When you see something being done, who do you call? That was a great question. Then it was, how do you go about following that through? This is something the members considered some more and then wanted to make a specific recommendation on that.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Thanks very much.

An Cathaoirleach

Is there a precedent internationally for a more local environmental court system?

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

I am not the expert on that, but I believe so. I believe we were told about that.

Ms Anne Jones

I think Ecuador and Bolivia were two.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

They were constitutional elements.

Ms Anne Jones

Constitutional, okay.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

The courts, I believe it is, but Mary Dobbs and Áine Ryall are probably the best people to speak to about that.

An Cathaoirleach

We can look at that. I am going off on a tangent now. There was some news at the weekend that in Wales they are bringing in the 20 miles per hour default speed limit. That would have been seen as something quite difficult to do. They are doing other things. They have actually halted their road building programme over there in the past couple of years. That came out of a commission they set up on future generations. I think Finland has something similar, and maybe other countries have it as well. It speaks to that idea of being the good ancestor. It is something we can certainly discuss in subsequent sessions. Do the witnesses have thoughts on that idea of a commission for future generations, and putting some structure on that idea of being the good ancestor? Have they recommendations?

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

There was some discussion on that and I took the decision as chair that it was going beyond our terms of reference. We already had 159 recommendations. Going beyond that and slightly outside the remit of specifically focusing on biodiversity seemed to me to go beyond our terms of reference. However, it was absolutely a theme of the work. From the very beginning we had the vision of cathedral thinking. Those who built the cathedrals we see across our lovely country knew they would not enjoy it. They were building it for seven generations' time, for 300 years time. This is what we should now be doing. This is the cathedral thinking that needs to focus on the environment.

Mr. Patrick Joyce

In protecting the future, young farmers need to be protected and supported too. There is an age profile problem within the farming community at the moment. If you go to any of the local marts, it is like an old folks' home. Young farmers are not encouraged and are afraid to come into the industry because they do not know where it is going. It has to be made clear to them that there is a future in it.

An Cathaoirleach

That is a very good point.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

I will back up Mr. Joyce's point. I am from County Mayo and I have a lot of young cousins, friends of brothers and so on, who really want to be in farming. It is interesting because their conversations are very different. There has been different training, different education and different awareness. It is really important, and we probably have not emphasised them enough in our conversations today, that we need to be considering young farming and the future of farming and, with that slight pivot in conversations, not just to focus on the agricultural and food outputs but also on the environmental and ecosystem services that farmers are key to.

Mr. Patrick Joyce

The full circuit.

An Cathaoirleach

Thank you for that.

We will take a second round of questions now and I invite Senator Boylan to come in, if she so wishes.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I have two short questions. I ask Mr. Joyce and Ms Jones if, from their experience of having been on the citizens’ assembly, they have changed their approach or what was the long-lasting impact of this, apart from the fact that they are so well informed on the issue of the biodiversity crisis. Have they extended that knowledge out to family members as it would be very interesting to learn of the ripple effect from their experience on the assembly?

My second question, to build on that, is to ask around the media’s responsibility which we were discussing and also those public awareness campaigns? I agree 100% that we need to be informing people around what biodiversity is, why we need to protect it and how people can protect it. One of the issues which I have raised in the Seanad before is that we do not have a great amount of time. It is about greater regulation on pesticides, rodenticides, metaldehyde and all of these chemicals where one can walk in quite freely, even into discount stores, and buy. Many members of the public are not aware that by putting down slug pellets, not only is one killing the slugs but one is also killing the hedgehogs, family pets and water life. Would our guests agree that we need to take a stronger and more regulatory role, certainly with respect to the public’s access to these chemicals?

Agriculture is a separate ballgame and that would have to be teased out but it should not be easy for the public to go in and perhaps our guests have changed that habit resulting from their experience on the citizens’ assembly.

Mr. Patrick Joyce

I have always enjoyed nature. I have a good place at home. I have hawks, owls, moorhens, and I have often sat down for an hour or two just watching nature which I myself enjoy. I have always left space for nature on my property and I am not being paid for it as it is just that I enjoy it myself.

When it comes to the public coming into my domain, no, I would not go down that route. That is dangerous and I do not agree with it.

Ms Anne Jones

Certainly, my views have definitely changed since the citizens’ assembly, there is no question about that. I would have been aware of many things but taking action is another story. I also live in the country and one of the things I decided to do was the No Mow May initiative and my neighbours could not understand. I specifically remember asking why did I not have a little placard which said that this is a biodiversity project rather than having somebody thinking that I was going sort of crazy.

There were others who had said that I had become radicalised so there is no doubt it has made a difference. I am very conscious of the animals, the birds and the nature around me and I have an abundance of it. There is the fear of not weeding my yard, or in fact of weeding it, and not allowing chemicals, pesticides and whatever to be used. Again, that would be strange in my locality because that would not have been the way that things would be done, if I can put it that way.

In the past, many chemicals would have been used and so forth. I am aware of the animals around also but they also do damage. I have a photograph on my phone where a fox destroyed a whole section of my lawn. I could not even figure out what had damaged it but apparently it was a fox because my next door neighbour told me it was.

It is about becoming conscious of the environment around us, of what we can do to enhance biodiversity and to encourage the children around us to get into activities such as neighbours’ children coming out to identify the plants or seeing what is happening. There is no doubt there is a change but we need to keep at it because otherwise it is not going to happen.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I will make a small point on that to tease it out where Ms Jones has said that she will do things differently where her perspective has changed, even in her own garden environment. Do Ms Jones and Mr. Joyce believe there has been a change in the idea of what the Irish landscape should look like? One of the things we see are mountainsides with molinia grass which some of us have become used to. This is that winter colouring which is something that we associate with the great Irish west but it is actually a sign of overgrazing. Did that idea filter through and not just with respect to our speakers’ near environment? I am asking here about the landscape.

Ms Anne Jones

No, but what did filter through was what happens in local authorities, because now local authorities are not cleaning the kerbs like they used to do. The roundabouts have all gone wild. Sometimes it actually looks untidy. I know we have to get into the mindset that untidy may be okay but for those of us who grew up in a certain generation, untidiness is still untidiness. When I see the roundabouts, I have a natural reluctance to accept them. I do not know where they fit into the Tidy Towns, for example, where there was such pride taken in cleaning up areas and making sure that everything was pristine when the inspectors came. Now, there are these scraggy roundabouts and scraggy approach roads. How you deal with that is another thing; how to accept that as being good in the overall sense of biodiversity.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

May I come in on this? I agree that it is a new lens through which one thinks about wildlife and nature. I have two perspectives; the hills of Connemara have always been beautiful to me but now I am a little heartbroken because I have suddenly realised I need to compare them to the islands on the Corrib, which are full of trees. That is what the hills should look like, but they have been overgrazed. It is something we need to be thinking about. We particularly need to think about the matter of overgrazing in terms of the wild deer. That has been recommended here in terms of invasive species. The new lens is sometimes difficult to grapple with.

On Ms Jones’s question on the Tidy Towns, I believe there is now a whole section on biodiversity. Obviously, that will come to the fore as we have more education and public engagement on it. From my own perspective, I am from rural Ireland but I live in an estate now. We have a local community pick-up group now and I have seen the research stating that even if you have people picking up the rubbish they then will start to think about their environment. Two years ago, there was an uproar over No Mow May but this year it just happened. We have to give people time because it is a big change. There are a lot of cultural changes that we are asking of people in Ireland. We have thought about things in one way for a very long time but I absolutely think it is possible and I think change can come.

On the Senator’s question about pesticides and herbicides, this subject came up. It came up specifically in terms of domestic use. Recommendation 18 looks at a reduction in pesticides by at least 50% by 2030 in line with EU policy. It also talks about chemical pesticides and fertilizers for home use, as well as the safe disposal of them.

I also want to emphasise - because we have not yet focused a huge amount on this in our conversation today - the subject of forestry, woodlands and hedgerows. Recommendation 129 speaks specifically about the use of pesticides in public forestry and private forestry to be reduced by at least 50%. This refers to pesticides and herbicides. Coillte was in before us and spoke to us about a reduction in that. This is something the members really wanted to highlight.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Did the members come across any country they would regard as having been particularly successful, having started from somewhere a bit like where we are, in mobilising the level of public support as well as a sustained commitment? I would have thought the Netherlands was a very successful country but I now see a massive pushback against it with the emergence of a farmers’ party that seems to be challenging many of the gains. That may be a very superficial view of what is going on in the Netherlands.

The other question is whether the members considered the circular economy as an all-embracing way of thinking. We have to look at the entire supply chain in our lives and the various impacts it has on nature, emissions, pollution, how we dispose of materials and so on. I ask this not only because I am interested in it but also because it has the merit of recognising that in the food sector and the farm sector, there are co-ops that are selling to consumers who are increasingly conscious of the need to have high-quality, sustainable food. They ought to be also feeding back through that supply chain. It should not just be just the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

I think Dr. Ní Shúilleabháin mentioned it when she referred to paying for quality, sustainable food. That could be just as powerful a signal. It would also be very powerful with regard to how we use packaging and so on. I am wondering if there is potential to integrate, through a circular economy prism, many of the challenges that we have, particularly in food?

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

Absolutely. I think this speaks to the fact that when members were doing this work and having these conversations, the climate change conversation was embedding in all of this. We specifically said that we are not going to look at recommendations for climate change but they are interlinked in that regard, in that our consumerism and resource usage impact on our biodiversity responsibilities, because pollution is a huge part of that. Recommendation 10 is that Ireland needs to recognise its global responsibility, including through local actions of consumers, resource usage, and so on. We also talked about how people would think about the broader economy and well-being and their own impact. Buying local, seasonal produce, buying organic produce and so on all contributes. There are specific recommendations on agriculture relating to that.

Reducing plastics and microplastics was specific to the recommendations on the marine. It was absolutely part of the conversations. The circular economy plays a huge role in this. The members of the assembly support what the State is currently doing in that regard to support those initiatives. That was definitely in the conversation.

On countries that are doing this well, I will refer to my colleagues on the advisory group too. New Zealand has struck me as one place that is doing good work in this regard. It is interesting that it has a whole-of-society policy on science and public engagement in this regard. It has also looked at protecting national parks, rivers and so on by working with local communities. It seems to have done quite well in incorporating indigenous communities in this conversations. Professor Crowe mentioned Denmark doing a lot. I spoke with colleagues in the Netherlands. A lot of work is under way there. The volume has been turned up with the maybe extreme debate that we hear, but I believe there is a lot of great work in the Netherlands, as Deputy Bruton said.

Professor Tasman Crowe

I agree that the Netherlands, putting the current situation to one side, has been progressive and proactive in advancing that agenda of taking care of the environment. It is a very concentrated place in a very vulnerable situation. The imperative has been there but the approach has been very consultative. That is a hallmark that has come up repeatedly. People have been engaged. Environmental decision-making involves a well-structured public dialogue. It is not top-down. There has been a lot of buy-in. As was said, things have become more challenging there. It has also been well-resourced. Utrecht has been a particularly prominent city in driving forward a biodiversity agenda. It is scaling up the small, community-led initiatives, widening the take-up and pushing them. It has recruited large numbers of people to the biodiversity unit of the municipal council, which will carry things forward in that way. There is a sense that we lag behind.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

We had a presentation from a planner in Utrecht who spoke about the large team on the city council. That is available on the website. We were blown away by the numbers who were on that team looking at and focusing on environmental biodiversity.

Dr. James Moran

Many countries around the world are doing certain aspects well but no country is getting this right. We need to look to our own capability. In the Netherlands in particular, I know from when we were in college, we had lectures with Professor Matthijs Schouten, who was influential with regard to peatland restoration across Europe. A country that has lost everything realises what it has lost and then does a lot. We do not want to get to the place the Netherlands is in. It has no pristine waters. Its water quality is abundantly worse than ours. When one gets to that stage, one ultimately has to take urgent action. The Netherlands is now trying to reverse that and there is pushback politically, as can be seen with the Farmer-Citizen Movement. The quantities of food that it can produce in a small area of the world is excellent. It leads on that.

However, this has had serious consequences for environmental quality, which now impact on the whole sustainability of its food model. When I hear environmental commentators suggesting that we should look towards the Netherlands as a model, I hope with all hope that we never get to that situation or have to take that level of action. It is a salutary lesson for us, if we were in the position that we had to take that level of action quickly. The Netherlands spends millions of euro on protecting one raised bog in one part of the country to regulate the water and keep it in. In the 1980s, the Netherlands turned to us to try to get us to protect our raised bogs, with people like Professor Schouten. I think colleagues on the panel are aware of the importance the Dutch people placed on peatlands conservation in Ireland in the 1980s in particular.

On New Zealand, in countries that are doing this well it is the indigenous people within those countries who have pushed this. Costa Rica is a particular example. It has turned deforestation around, through the level of engagement from the country's indigenous people and their cultural respect for nature. That comes through with the Maori in New Zealand as well. We have lost an awful lot of that in an Irish context over the last 800 years. We have lost our Celtic sense of connection with nature. We are not in as bad a place as some of the other countries and I hope we do not have to get there before we realise what we have lost. We should look to ourselves, although we can take a lot of different examples, including planning in Utrecht, national parks, and forest protection in Costa Rica. There are little recipes and parts of the solution in various countries but we should trust in ourselves, knowing our island and our cultural background, that we can plan our way out of this ourselves. We do not need to look to other countries. We can learn lessons from them but we have the wherewithal. We are one of the most highly educated countries in the world thanks to the work on education that has been done in the State over the past 90 or 100 years. We can do things very well when we want to, but we do them atrociously a lot of the time.

Dr. Mícheál Ó Cinnéide

There was a question about environmental courts and if there were any other examples. The State of Vermont has a very well developed system of environmental courts at state level, which I suppose is equivalent to the District Court here. I attended a talk given in Trinity by a judge from there to the Irish Environmental Law Association. The IELA could give the committee advice on that area.

Going back to the question from Deputy Bruton about countries that are doing it better or that we can learn from, I agree fully with what Dr. Moran and Professor Crowe have said. In a way, the answer to that question is similar to the answers to those from Deputies O'Rourke and Paul Murphy about process and how we do it. What we learn from some of those countries is that their process is different in terms of long-term thinking, providing the data and making the space for consultation. It is not vested interests in a narrow room somewhere that are deciding food policy for the next ten or 15 years, which is what we have had when we look back. It is correct to say that people did know in 2008 and 2010; I was a director of the EPA and there were reports presented to the Food Harvest planning group about what the impact would be of scaling up the dairy sector in terms of 1 million tonnes extra of carbon dioxide emissions, regional impacts on water quality and impacts on biodiversity. It was known. It is not a surprise or a shock, or it should not be. What was missing was the process. Now we are arguing for and people here are talking about a more transparent, inclusive process where citizens are more involved. That is what we learned from the other countries. It could be one of the take-home messages for the committee that process is as important as specific targets.

Then there is the tone of what we are trying to convey. The tone of what is coming out here is very much taking this thing seriously and saying it has to be at the centre of the debate, not pushed out to the side. That is what we learned from Norway, Sweden, Finland and Costa Rica. I am familiar with a lot of those countries and, over a long period, they have definitely evolved more respect for nature and climate as part of their public policymaking. That is what we learned.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I cannot agree more with Dr. Moran on our cultural connection and how we have lost it.

We have become very disconnected and see ourselves above nature as opposed to part of it. I worked with Aboriginal communities in Australia on water management and learned so much from them, including how they were part of nature and water. We could do a lot worse than listen to those voices and try to get some of that connection and understanding back.

Earlier hedgerows were mentioned. We have not really discussed hedgerows, which is surprising because they are an important part of our ecosystem. Hedgerows can, if we enable them, act as corridors that can crisscross the entire countryside. I have noticed that the hedgerows are full of berries and I have never seen as many. Yesterday, I saw a hedgecutter on one of the roads in County Wicklow completely cutting back hedges, which is legal as this is the cutting season. Has the citizens' assembly discussed extending the hedgecutting period or making the period more adaptive? I ask because our weather patterns are changing. If we stick rigidly to, say, a period from March to September, we will probably miss the whole purpose of having a non-cutting season. Did a discussion take place on adaptive responses or an extension? In the UK the hedgecutting season has been extended to November, thus enabling birds enough time to forage for food.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

Yes, we did have conversations about the matter. Hedgerows were emphasised as being the blood supply of the country, and something that we have unfortunately been losing and not protecting. What we have seen since our report was published is that the new Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, strategy is looking towards more supports for hedgerows, which is great to see.

The members of the assembly have recommended that a "new national strategy for the protection, maintenance, restoration and expansion of Ireland’s network of hedgerows must be developed." As soon as we got into a conversation about adaptive responses, people asked what would happen here or there. We, as an assembly, did not feel that we should be the ones to designate what should happen specifically in each area. Instead, we felt there should be a new national strategy.

With regard to hedgerows, we recommended that "Hedge management courses and certification should be reintroduced and it should be a requirement that all hedge cutting contractors and their employees complete such courses." As the Deputy has mentioned, we have lost our connection with hedgerows and no longer emphasise their importance. I assure her that they were a big part of our conversation. There is obviously a lot of great work going on with voluntary groups and the hedgerow societies. Farmers are doing great work on hedgerows on their own lands. The Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss asked that we develop something specifically for hedgerows and that we upskill people on the requirement to protect hedgerows as they are a key resource in Ireland.

Ms Anne Jones

There was also a concern about safety where hedgerows are concerned. For example, some of the roads along where I live are very narrow. When I am at my gate, I must look around a wall of hedging to get onto the road safely. Safety was part of our discussion.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

Yes, we want the national strategy to be adaptable and to take safety into account. We also want the importance of hedgerows to wildlife to be emphasised.

Ms Anne Jones

Yes.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

Wildlife across the planet has been reduced to 4% but all biodiversity depends on wildlife. Wildlife in Ireland resides in our hedgerows a lot of the time. Therefore, if we reduce our wildlife we will reduce what we depend on even further. This is why we need to emphasise the importance of hedgerows.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Recommendation No. 10 states: "The State should advocate for a shift in emphasis in EU and international economic policy away from GDP expansion as a goal in itself and towards the goals of societal and ecological wellbeing." That is a great recommendation. I think it is a radical recommendation because it goes against the ideology of growth and growthism, which arises from the capitalist system in which we live, which involves production for profit and needs constant expansion in order to keep profit going. How did the citizens' assembly come to make this recommendation?

It cuts against the assumption across mainstream media, in the Civil Service and among the vast majority of political parties, which holds that by definition GDP growth is a good thing. That assumption is that our lives will get better if we have more GDP and our lives will get worse if we have less GDP as opposed to looking at what constitutes GDP, which is many things that make people's lives worse rather than better, such as arms production, advertising and fossil fuel production. There are obviously many things that add very little to GDP but that make people's lives better in terms of public luxury such as high-quality parks. Those things add something but they do not add anything near what is total GDP. The witnesses' considerations of that would be interesting. How much were these issues considered?

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

The resourcing of the State's response to biodiversity loss was a key focus of members directly from the first meeting. In our second meeting in September, Dr. Eddie Casey, chief economist with the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, addressed the assembly. Professor Kate Raworth, co-founder of the Doughnut Economics Action Lab, also addressed the assembly. We were trying to ensure that we had a diversity of perspectives but what members really latched onto in recommendation 10, which the Deputy highlighted, was our international responsibilities and that if we are only focusing on growth for ourselves as an economy, as he said, that is not necessarily to the betterment of everybody or of the rest of the world. To support those, we have recommendations 33 and 34. That is where members wanted the State to embrace fully the beyond-GDP concept and ensure that the national well-being framework was at the core of economic decisions so that the national well-being framework actually encompasses environment, climate and biodiversity. Let that be the focus rather than simply the GDP number, which can often be skewed, as has been seen.

Again this can be seen as quite progressive on the part of members. Citizens' assemblies in Ireland provide this unusual voice to members of society, a voice that is often ahead of the thinking - no offence - of our policymakers and politicians. That is potentially surprising but in the grand scheme of all the presentations we received where we were told that by buying produce from South America, even chocolate and coffee, we impact on the biodiversity of other places and if we actually buy local, seasonal, organic produce and support our Irish farmers, we will help international biodiversity. That then fed into the conversations regarding how can we do better in this economy. That was the idea that we do not go beyond our boundaries, beyond our means, or push the planet beyond what it can provide for us. That is what we see in recommendations 10, 33 and 34.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I refer to a point that Dr. Ó Cinnéide made about plans to expand agricultural production in Ireland. Harvest 2020 was a ten-year plan for a 50% growth in dairy and pigmeat production, 20% growth in beef and sheep production and a 10% increase in poultry production. That was never going to be compatible with not deepening our biodiversity crisis, was it? Does Dr. Ó Cinnéide believe the thinking of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has changed on any of this in the intervening time? Does the Department accept the recommendation that states all Departments must explicitly acknowledge the State's declaration and take immediate and targeted action? If we were to have another plan like that, it would run directly against what he citizens' assembly is calling for to happen in this regard.

Dr. Mícheál Ó Cinnéide

I will try to answer that. Dr. Moran might come in as well because he engages with the Department more regularly than I do. The answer is "not enough". Considering the entire report and the critique it makes of how the State approaches nature, as agriculture makes up 70% of land use, which is a large component, the evidence is before us that we still have a significant problem. On the other hand, a lot of data was presented that showed a sense of a need for a shift. That is what I mean by "not enough". The response I made to an earlier conversation and several others said it too, was: how do we tackle the problem in the future? There needs to be a different process whereby data is put on the table and there is time, space and transparency to kick the tyres on new policy.

Agricultural policy then becomes part of a broader conversation around sustainability and an integrated approach to government. That is what is needed. Do we have that fully? Not yet.

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

What Deputy Murphy has stated is, I believe, reflected in recommendations Nos. 16 and 75. Recommendation No. 16 says, "The State must work with all stakeholders to review Ireland’s current food policy in the context of the biodiversity crisis, particularly in agriculture and marine sectors, to balance between the affordability and quality of food." We heard informally from many presenters that the EU's food policy was a cheap food policy to ensure the EU could provide for the EU. In that, we heard from certain farmers that this drove them to not have crop rotation, to use more machinery, to try to get as much out for as little as possible, but not necessarily focusing on the quality of food. This is why at the end of recommendation 16, the assembly members said it is not necessarily that we get rid of cheap food because we need all members of society to have access to high-quality food. In that regard, we might consider the vulnerable sections of the population that require such access, and some big thinking would need to happen with that. I echo what Dr. Ó Cinnéide has just said, that our food production should be in line with all of the commitments Ireland has signed up to: Agenda 2030, the sustainable development goals that everyone is talking about right now; the Paris Agreement, which is our climate agreement; the European Green Deal; and our current legal obligations to protect biodiversity, genetic resources, and water quality. We are not doing that. It is now about having an action where we can see our food policies and agricultural policies align with those other commitments we have made.

Dr. James Moran

With these overarching policies, Food Harvest 2020 and Food Vision 2030, we must remember that when the Food Harvest 2020 policy was done, we were just at the point of the economic crash. At the time, the country was on its knees. It was looking to some indigenous industry within Ireland that could grow us out of the economic catastrophe we were in at the time. It looked to agriculture. This is why we saw an overriding emphasis on production growth. They knew the writing was on the wall at the time and that the dairy quotas were going to go and be lifted in 2013, which left a huge possibility for expansion. This was an industry-led policy. The industry was always going to look to seize that opportunity at the time, and that is what it did. There was some talk around it that there should have been more encompassing of sustainability, but the economics trumped everything else there. It was like a heavy weight on top of society and the environment in terms of the consequences. The consequences were predicted by EPA and by the environmental assessments of that. At the time it was a case of "We are in such an economic situation; drive on". Where we are at with the nitrates directive this week is a consequence of that.

Some of the language in terms of policy was moderated in Food Vision 2030. If you look at the language of the missions and goals of Food Vision 2030, they have sustainability all over them, including meeting the sustainable development goals. It looks very good but I believe it was Deputy O'Rourke who alluded to some of the stakeholders leaving the building when that was being finalised. A lot of that was down to how that was actually going to be implemented and due to the details around Food Vision 2030.

Fundamentally, it now comes down to industry having a key role. We need industry. We have one of the best food industries, potentially globally. We are world leaders in this. These food vision policies and food systems in general are too important to be overly, not controlled but influenced, in a role by the industry. They are hugely important but we need a wider food systems approach to our next food vision. That needs to take a society-led approach, not just led by private industry or the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, or the Minister or the Government or whatever. There must be an overriding emphasis on that sector of society. A functioning economy serves the needs of the society and works within the environmental limits. We have it the other way round. We need to have the space in the middle, which is society, leading this while being cognisant of our environmental limits with regard to donors economics, and serving the economy's needs. We must have a functioning economy and a functioning agri-industry. We have huge potential there for a wonderful food sector, which to a certain extent we have in being a global leader. On having an overriding influence, Food Vision 2030 mission and goals is perfect but we need to take those missions and goals and look at the implementation more clearly.

More societal influence and support from consumers, as well as the production side, will lead us with a much better policy. That needs to be done urgently because decisions are being made on the next round of the Common Agricultural Policy, post-2027, and how that is going to emerge in 2025 and 2026. We need to have a whole-of-society conversation on our food vision up to 2050 in the next 24 months to influence what is going to happen in the implementation on the ground in 2028.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I wish to look at the mechanism to harness the incredible goodwill among individuals and communities. Were the role and potential of local authorities, for example, looked at? They are a lot closer to communities. It is also fair to say that we have a particularly weak form of local government compared with many other countries. Is there a potential opportunity to expand that role in this effort? If so, what might that look like? Is there also an opportunity more widely within society to involve NGOs and sporting and cultural organisations? I think of the strength of the GAA, for example. It is at the heart of many communities. Did that come up in conversations?

Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin

I thank Deputy O'Rourke. Local authorities were key across all of the conversations because people recognised that they are the key place for people to be involved in their local area and for the enforcement of legislation. Across the 159 recommendations, there are specific recommendations relevant to local authorities. For example, recommendation No. 29 suggests that, "Each local authority must have at least one full-time dedicated biodiversity officer, the total number of which should be determined by population density, land mass and coastline". That followed our presentation from Utrecht. Off the top of my head, I cannot quite recall the number but I believe it had seven in its planning department for that one city. Our local authorities do not even have one each at the moment. As I said, a lot of development has occurred on that, which is great. Recommendation No. 42 also states that, "Local authorities are uniquely placed to deliver biodiversity projects". We have to provide funding and staff resources. The recommendation also states that local authorities should be held accountable. One recommendation suggested by members is that Government, under the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, have a blueprint for every local authority to suggest the outlined works on which each might be able to focus.

In terms of local groups and NGOs, etc., they were also highlighted as key. We came across so many communities across the country that we created specific videos because we could not invite everybody in. They are available on the website; they are fascinating. Recommendation Nos. 47 to 54 highlight the support communities and NGOs require in this area, such as providing a streamlined and easily accessible system of small grants, information and support, funding and infrastructural supports to local community and voluntary groups engaged on biodiversity loss and restoration, like managing invasive species. Many groups are doing that, for example, tackling rhododendrons and participating in citizen science. The recommendations also highlight the all-Ireland pollinator plan and aligning the work communities can do with rural regeneration and development. They are policies that can align and provide an injection of funding and energy into rural communities and communities in urban areas with gardens and allotments. They were a focus of success stories happening on the ground and how we can do more of that. As I said earlier, an independent agency could be a go-to place for that, providing information and recording the great work being done. If, when people give up their time for free, that was recognised in some way by the State, simply by acknowledging it on the record, that would add to people's capacity to want to do more.

number of which should be determined by population density, land mass and coastline

An Cathaoirleach

As that is all the questions from members, we are at the end of the session. It has been a very interesting one. We will take strands from this discussion - some key points and themes have emerged through it - and figure out how to set up the subsequent public sessions we will have that will lead us up to Christmas and the doing up of a report. As I said, the point of this exercise is to find a political consensus around a lot of the work the assembly has done, so we are really building on a much bigger and deeper volume of work for which it is responsible. We are indebted to the assembly members for that, and I hope we do it justice in the coming months. I thank the witnesses again for coming to Leinster House today. Their time is very much appreciated and I am optimistic that when we have done our report, it will set up this Government, I hope, but certainly the next one for devising policy and setting the vision Dr. Moran talked about earlier as to how we deal with biodiversity and where we want to be in ten, 20, 30 years' time.

Once again, I thank the witnesses. I will adjourn the meeting now until our private meeting at 3.30 p.m. today.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.42 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 26 September 2023.