Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate -
Tuesday, 21 Nov 2023

Citizens' Assembly Report on Biodiversity Loss: Discussion (Resumed)

The purpose of this meeting is to continue the committee's examination of the recommendations contained in the report of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. The meeting will be split into two sessions. The first will be with Inland Fisheries Ireland.

The second, at 12.30 p.m., will be with members of the Youth Citizen's Assembly on Biodiversity Loss.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. Francis O'Donnell, chief executive officer of Inland Fisheries Ireland, and Dr. Micheál Ó Cinnéide. I thank them for being here. Both travelled considerable distances to be in the room with us. We really appreciate their taking the time to come to Dublin for this session.

Before we begin, I will read a note on privilege. I remind our guests of the long-standing parliamentary practice 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 a person or entity. If witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks. 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 only allowed to participate in this meeting if they are physically located on the Leinster House complex. I ask members who are joining us online to confirm prior to making their contributions to the meeting that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex.

I invite Mr. O'Donnell to make his opening statement.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

I thank the Chairman and members for inviting Inland Fisheries Ireland to attend. We are delighted to be here to discuss this subject. I will be as quick as I possibly can.

Fish species form an essential part of biodiversity of water bodies. For example, fish are an important link in the food chain in all water bodies and serve as a food for other fish, birds such as herons, cormorants and white-tailed eagles, and mammals such as otters and even humans, all while adding to the biodiversity of water bodies. Certain fish species such as juvenile salmon and trout serve as an essential host in the life cycle of the endangered freshwater pearl mussel. Fish are also an important indicator of water quality and ecosystem health, and are considered sentinel species.

Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, is the statutory authority, tasked under section 7(1) of the Inland Fisheries Act 2010 with the responsibility for the protection, management and conservation of the inland fisheries resource as one of Ireland's core environmental agencies. IFI's role relates to all fish species in freshwater and their habitats; all aspects of the aquatic environment, such as water quality biodiversity and hydromorphology; and all factors that influence biotic communities within those water bodies. The conservation of valuable water resources, and protection and enhancement of biological diversity are core components of IFI's legislative remit. IFI also protects bluefin tuna and sea bass as part of a service level agreement with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. This delegation of functions is pragmatic and extremely beneficial for species protection and provides value for money for the taxpayer.

Inland Fisheries Ireland's environmental role is delivered primarily by a network of environmental officers based in the six river basin districts. The environmental function can broadly be broken into three main themes: regulatory enforcement; expertise knowledge and industry experience; and stewardship and advocacy. IFI staff are empowered to enforce the Water Pollution Acts 1977 and 1990.

IFI undertakes and commissions applied research on biodiversity and conservation specifically to assess the conservation status of fish species, to monitor the status of fish stocks and to explore environmental issues that have an impact on fish and their habitats. IFI provides scientific research and management advice to the Minister for the Environment Climate Action on Communications.

Ireland has approximately 74,000 km of rivers and streams, over 12,000 lakes and an extensive coastline all of which fall under IFI's jurisdiction.

IFI's activities align with several recommendations made in the citizens' assembly report and, thus, IFI should be considered a key agency in the protection and restoration of biodiversity in our freshwater and coastal waters. IFI is responsible for the enforcement and implementation of existing national legislation and by-laws directed at the conservation of fish species and the habitats within which they reside. For species like the European eel and Atlantic salmon, which are under considerable conservation pressure, IFI has directed its resources to provide focused conservation measures which include habitat restoration, evidence-based fisheries management, legislation and enforcement of protection against poaching.

The latter remains a constant risk and is very resource intensive. IFI has a long history of assessing the health of rivers, lakes and estuaries through the monitoring of fish stocks, which in recent years has expanded to national programmes supporting and reporting on the status of fish populations through a national monitoring programme, which in turn informs restoration and protection measures. These data support IFI’s role in implementing the water framework directive and habitats directive.

IFI has supported a recent review of the extinction risk relating to freshwater fish species and certain trout ecotypes in Ireland. Using the latest international guidelines, IFI found 43% of fish species are threatened. One species, the European eel, has been classified as critically endangered and another, pollan, has been assessed as endangered. Nine species have been classified as vulnerable. They include Arctic char, twaite shad, Killarney shad, ferox trout, gillaroo trout, sonaghen trout, croneen trout, dollaghan trout and Atlantic salmon. Two species were found to be near threatened: the sea lamprey and sea trout. It is important to note sea trout experienced a dramatic collapse in 1987 along the west coast and have not recovered in that geographical area.

As part of IFI’s climate mitigation research programme, IFI scientists and colleagues have established that Arctic char is the most vulnerable to climate change of all fish species present on the island, followed by salmon, pollan, gillaroo trout, sonaghen trout and Killarney shad. Seven fish species are listed in the habitats directive and their conservation status was assessed in 2019: four were bad, two favourable and one of unknown status.

Over generations, many Irish rivers have been severely impacted by human activity, mainly to facilitate land drainage. In some cases the natural habitats on which a huge variety of fish and wildlife rely have been removed or damaged and cannot be replaced. Each year IFI staff survey a number of these channels and develop river habitat restoration plans which aim to restore these rivers to something close to their natural state. IFI has pioneered the implementation of riverine restoration programmes in Ireland using evidence-based measures and through various funding streams in partnership with stakeholders and other agencies. These riverine restoration interventions are a key tool in the protection and restoration of freshwater aquatic systems and, therefore, biodiversity.

IFI has led in the development of a river barrier assessment tool and is currently mapping the extent of barriers to fish migration nationwide through the national barriers programme. The mitigation of barriers and restoration of free-flowing rivers can enable the protection and restoration of natural biodiversity and our catchments. With the support of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, IFI has developed a national barriers mitigation programme. The programme will be supported by the establishment of a new capital programme to remove, where possible, and mitigate the environmental impact of river barriers. The plan includes four pilot barrier mitigation projects being progressed to trial methods for dealing with different implementation challenges. IFI and collaborators are undertaking an applied climate change mitigation research programme to focus on the impacts of climate change on inland waters. The programme is bridging a knowledge gap related to the impacts of climate change on Ireland's fish and their habitats and will also provide data to support investigations on the decline in overall freshwater biodiversity. The evidence supplied will enable IFI and key partners to: design the best ways to protect and sustainably restore freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity, which have been under pressure for many years; increase resilience to the adverse impacts of extreme weather; and allow strategic prioritisation of conservation and protection measures.

We already know water temperatures within catchments are reaching lethal levels for salmon and trout during summer periods. These catchments were originally shaded by deciduous forests, allowing for refuge. Anthropogenic activity has resulted in the removal of natural tree cover, which destabilises riverbanks, which, in turn, interrupts ecosystem processes needed for all species that reside in or close to river corridors.

IFI has a strong focus on the protection and management of aquatic and riparian invasive species. Over decades, IFI has supported the development of biosecurity protocols and invasive management methodologies to protect our catchments from this growing threat. IFI staff and funding have been engaged to tackle these invaders. For example, IFI continues to manage the highly aggressive submerged aquatic plant species Lagarosiphon major in Lough Corrib. This invasive plant has the capacity to take over large areas of this and other lakes, impacting greatly on plant and animal biodiversity. We clearly need legislation in this area that prevents the movement of boats without proper sanitation certification.

The Shannon system has ten non-native species at present and their spread to other water bodies is inevitable if legislation and enforcement are not undertaken. Critically, there needs to be an all-Ireland approach to this issue because invasive species often use transboundary river corridors to invade.

Inland Fisheries Ireland and its staff are passionate about the protection and conservation of our native biodiversity. This goal is fully aligned with statutory legislation to conserve, protect and develop the inland fisheries resource. As an organisation, we are committed to expanding our efforts to restore and protect our environment and enforce legislation where necessary, particularly where it can support the restoration of aquatic biodiversity. Equally, we believe serious consideration needs to be given to expanding the powers of authorised officers to enforce the environmental and wildlife legislation in a wider context. This would benefit Ireland’s aquatic and terrestrial environments and the species that rely on them, including humans. A significant review of the financial penalties associated with wildlife, water quality and habitat destruction is now required to deter those involved if we are to stem the reduction in Ireland’s biodiversity loss for future generations. Enforcement in this area should be viewed as a positive thing, as the natural world belongs to all citizens.

I thank Mr. O'Donnell for his opening statement. I will go now to Dr. Ó Cinnéide for his statement.

Dr. Mícheál Ó Cinnéide

Go raibh maith ag baill an choiste as ucht an deis a bheith anseo inniu chun moltaí ó thionól na saoránach a phlé. I am speaking in a personal capacity but drawing on my experience as a member of the expert advisory group on the Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, and previously as a senior manager with the EPA, the Marine Institute, fishery boards and the Department of the marine.

Based on hearings held by the committee since September, it is clear there are some positive developments as regards protection of nature that address some key concerns of the assembly, particularly: the fourth national biodiversity action plan, to be placed on a statutory footing, which we heard last week is due out in quarter 1 of next year; the nature restoration plan, which is due out in 2026; the river basin management plan for 2024-27, which again is delayed, but I think it is due in the first quarter of next year; and the draft Bill on marine protected areas. These four actions are very welcome but there is a key challenge for the committee to assess how far these initiatives go to address the assembly’s recommendations and what gaps remain. I would be glad to come to back to that if members wish.

I was asked to speak specifically about enforcement. On enforcement, the assembly agreed that "the State has comprehensively failed to fund, implement and enforce existing national [and EU] legislation" and suggested that this "must change". That was a strong statement. The joint Oireachtas committee discussed recommendations Nos. 44 and 45 on enforcement in detail with officials from parks and wildlife last Tuesday, 14 November and today it heard about Inland Fisheries Ireland's approach to enforcement. A challenge for the committee is to assess whether the parks and wildlife approach we heard last week, which is that everybody in parks and wildlife is responsible for wildlife crime, is the most effective when compared with other enforcement bodies. Can further steps be taken to strengthen the enforcement of our wildlife laws, as was recommended by the citizens' assembly? Again, we can return to this if members wish.

On the Constitution, the assembly recommended that Ireland adopt the human right to a "clean, healthy, safe environment" as a fundamental part of our Constitution. The committee had a detailed discussion on this with Professor Áine Ryall and her colleagues on 17 October. Apart from its legal significance, another benefit would be the nationwide public debate that would precede such a referendum of the people. For example, the public participation network in Galway, which I am a member of, wrote a letter to the Chair recently. It said, among other things:

We support the possibility of an amendment, as we feel this would facilitate conversations up and down the country, which could usher in the transformational change that we need.

While the new national biodiversity action plan is said to address about 100 of the 159 recommendations from the citizens' assembly, the committee needs to consider its position in regard to some other recommendations that are likely to fall outside the ambit of the biodiversity action plan. The draft of it is published on the web and it has about 160 actions. I will pick some that are important that I think the committee needs to consider. One of them is "People must be encouraged to consume a more plant-based diet." This was the subject of vigorous debate at the assembly. The implementation of this proposal could be led by the Department of Health and its agencies, including the HSE and Safefood.

Recommendation No. 100 is that the Arterial Drainage Act 1945 "must be reviewed and updated" to take account of the biodiversity and climate crisis. The OPW and relevant agencies and Departments can progress this. There is a recommendation in the biodiversity action plan about the OPW taking biodiversity into account but it does not suggest anything like the review of the legislation. Similarly, recommendations Nos. 116 and 120 are for the remit of Bord na Móna and Coillte to be reviewed. It states that the State must "reassess the constitution, goals and operations of Coillte and the 1988 Forestry Act". This reassessment must ensure biodiversity protection and ecosystem services are core objectives for Coillte. This topic generated a lot of debate at the assembly in discussions with colleagues from Coillte and the forestry sector. Such reviews in the case of Bord na Móna and Coillte would link with the EU restoration law and the new forestry strategy that has recently been published by the Department of agriculture.

The 99 citizens were asked by the Oireachtas to consider how the State can improve its response to the crisis of biodiversity that was declared in 2019. On any fair assessment, the report brings fresh thinking beyond what is likely to be contained in the next biodiversity action plan. I say that having looked in detail at the draft. Tackling biodiversity loss will be more successful if it involves a wide range of Government actors and is supported by legal change and community energy. The support of this committee for a broad suite of measures including, but going further than, the existing plans in the pipeline would send a signal that the voice of the citizens has been heard.

Thank you, Dr. Ó Cinnéide, for your opening statement and for linking it back to the sessions we have had so far. That is very helpful for us. I will invite members to indicate to ask questions. I remind members that we have to adjourn the meeting at 12.15 p.m. to allow the next session to start so I will move it along as quickly as possible.

Dr. Ó Cinnéide referred to recommendations Nos. 116 and 120 of the report of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss with respect to the remits of Coillte and Bord na Móna. It was suggested that they should be assessed such that their objectives align with the great climate and biodiversity challenges we face. I want to put something to Mr. O'Donnell with respect to Inland Fisheries Ireland. You guys work hand in glove with ESB on the rivers. I am very familiar with the lower Shannon. Ardnacrusha power station is only a couple of kilometres up the river from where I live. I know that part of the Shannon intimately. There are challenges around fish and habitat protection there. I do not think it is in the citizens' assembly report, but would Mr. O'Donnell agree there is a commercial mandate there for the ESB which has been there for a long time? Should its mandate be tweaked such that biodiversity protection and habitat restoration are front and centre as well?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

For the last two years we have been working in close co-operation with the ESB on this issue. Barrier mitigation is a major priority for us. Parteen weir near Ardnacrusha is one of the big challenges for Atlantic salmon and other species. Our research department is engaging very closely with the ESB on that matter. Also, to be fair to the ESB, the conversation has moved on a lot in the last 18 months, particularly around research on Atlantic salmon and the European eel. As we said earlier, they are critically endangered. We have an agreement with the ESB that both IFI and the ESB will work jointly and contribute jointly financially to future research on these species. To be fair to the ESB, there has been a shift in focus and on strategy around conservation.

As the Cathaoirleach says, there is a commercial aspect to it.

We have impressed upon the ESB that it is doing very well financially and that some of that money needs to be diverted back into resolving these issues. To be fair, it is working on this and has set up a working group at a very high level, with myself and the chief operating officer.

I thank the witnesses for their opening submissions. I have a couple of questions. Mr. O'Donnell spoke about the Shannon system and the navigation and said he feels additional legislation is needed to prevent invasive species being spread. I live in that part of the world and we have a lot of boats that go from the Shannon system into the Erne system via the canals and all of that. Legislating for it is one thing, but whether the infrastructure is there to do it is the other.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

One comes with the other. The Deputy is correct about that. IFI is examining what that would look like, whether it would be a sanitation certificate for somebody who is moving a boat from one water body to another and so on. As to whether we have the resources internally at the moment to enforce that, the answer probably is "No". However, it is something I need to talk to my own Minister about. We have an internal forum called the national inland fisheries forum. It is a statutory forum. It is bringing forward recommendations along those lines as well. At the moment, for example, there are ten non-native mollusc species in the Shannon. There is absolutely nothing to stop them from being transferred. We do not fully understand the ecological impacts of one, two or three together but ten is very significant. I said this earlier. Lagarosiphon major is a real risk in the context of all water bodies in Ireland. We spend approximately €300,000 a year just to contain it in part of Lough Corrib. If that was to get out of control in Lough Corrib, it could very quickly run to €3 million a year and could get into other water bodies. This is just one species. The biological and ecological implications are significant but the cost to the taxpayer is also significant. It probably goes back to what the Deputy is saying. The resources will cost money, but the consequences if we do not put them in place will be significant.

I understand. It is something that needs to be addressed with some degree of urgency. The other issue I wanted to raise is in regard to the problems we have in some of our lakes, particularly with algae bloom and all of that. It is something I see all around me, particularly in the summertime. A lot of that is coming from nitrates, basically, and the overuse of nitrates, much of which is in the agricultural sector. I know there are various agencies dealing with this, including the local authorities. What level of sanction is IFI looking for? Mr. O'Donnell mentioned how there need to be greater sanctions, greater enforcement and more authority put in place. What is the problem at the moment that this is not delivering?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

Much of the legislation is quite antiquated. We are relying on a 1959 Act for fisheries prosecutions and Acts from 1977 and 1990 for the water quality side of things. It should possibly be an A, B and C category offence type system. To some degree, a District Court or Circuit Court judge can impose a fine within a range at the moment, but I think that range is not sufficient. We would have had situations over the last number of years where 5,000 or 10,000 juvenile salmon or trout were killed in a river system. That is only what we could actually see. That is very significant and it takes a long time for that system to recover. In some cases, it is done accidentally. In other cases, we believe it is done deliberately. A small fine of €2,000 or €3,000 is not significant and for environmental crimes like that. Small fines do not deter people from doing it again in the future. That needs to be reviewed and looked at. We are working with our parent Department at the moment on revising our own legislation. We are looking at the A, B, C category fine system as well. Obviously, that would have to be consolidated and brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is probably about a year away. That is something agencies should be looking at with regard to small fines. People are committing significant fishery offences and getting fines of €400 or €500.

In respect of the accidental thing, some of it can be quite deliberate but much of it is accidental.

It is not intentional. Farmers spread slurry and nitrates at a time of year. A flood or a great deal of rain comes along and they do not intend that this activity has the impact it has. What can be done to ensure that we militate against those accidents happening? Is there more-----

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

I think we would do that. We work in communities and catchments. LAWPRO, which works for the local authorities, would be doing the same. We probably do not have enough people on the ground. At the moment, our environmental officers seem to be inundated with reviewing planning applications for other agencies. As an agency, we probably need to restructure what we are doing during the winter periods and spend more time monitoring in catchments with farmers but also trying to work with them as well.

How much of the pollution is coming from municipal or human waste?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

I could not tell the Deputy what the percentage is. I will have to come back to him on that. We would have significant issues with some local authorities and treatment plants. We have also had fish kills from treatment plants.

Has this happened with forestry and industry?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

It is a problem with forestry in how they fell and the time of year they do it. I believe we spoke earlier about Coillte's policies. We have engaged with the senior management team in Coillte to see where they can help us in upland catchments with regard to planting deciduous forestry to cool catchments in the summer periods. We are working towards a memorandum of understanding with them at the moment.

Much of the forestry is not under Coillte control now. Some of it is moving to private ownership.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

It is, and it is a problem. When forests are being clear-felled, we monitor and go out on site. In some cases, if there are pollution incidents where transport sediment from the afforestation gets into river systems, we ask them to put mitigations in place. If they do not, we will prosecute for that.

As we have to move on, I ask the Deputy to be very brief.

We have issues on some of our mountain ranges where we have had very significant landslides and great difficulties in that regard. This has caused great pollution. We have had whole sides of a mountain bog wash into rivers, with very significant effects downstream from that. Some of the farmers are complaining. This issue is having very significant ecological effects.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

There is no question about that. When a large power-generating plant is put into an upland catchment, as in the case the Deputy is talking about, it has to go through very tight and specific environmental guidelines. If the project gets across the line, sometimes there can be an accident after that, unfortunately. I agree with the Deputy, but the process is very stringent. In recent years, there have been a number of landslides which have focused people's minds even more on doing it better. One can never completely mitigate what could happen.

I thank Mr. O'Donnell.

I thank Deputy Kenny. Senator Pauline O'Reilly will be followed by Deputy Whitmore, Deputy Bruton, Deputy O'Rourke and Senator Boylan, if we have time to get them all in.

I thank both of our guests. I am conscious of time. I was going to ask about the legislation but Deputy Kenny has covered that. I am trying to get my head around where our guest speakers would see our rivers and waterways if legislation and enforcement were in place. Would there still be an issue because of climate change? When we talk about bloom or invasive species, it is not just a matter of clearing up pollution, so what is their assessment? If everything else was done and was perfect, and if Inland Fisheries Ireland could enforce against all of the crimes and none of them were happening, where would our waterways be? What else needs to be done, if that makes sense?

Second, I am aware that many of the issues that arise happen on land and have an impact on our waterways. Where does the balance of enforcement lie between Inland Fisheries Ireland and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS? Are there adequate resources in place to tackle all of the issues?

There were many questions for us in Dr. Ó Cinnéide's statement. Will Inland Fisheries Ireland expand on some of them, in particular how to deal with some of the issues it feels fall outside the biodiversity action plan and its recommendations? It pointed to a few. Inland Fisheries Ireland probably has a list in mind of what falls outside of it and how it feels they could be managed.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

In a perfect world, I would start with water quality. We will have a significant problem for the next 20 years if EU policy is changed regarding intensive farming in Ireland. We can deal with point source pollution with more boots on the ground. There are a significant number of prosecutions every year in this area. We could have more if we had more people to do it. The diffuse pollution problem will be there for 20, 25 or 30 years. It is not necessarily something we can control. However, we have a very strong opinion on it which we make known to our Minister. I think we all know that in this room.

On climate change, it is uncertain. Take Atlantic salmon numbers, for example. In 1973 or 1974, 1.2 million salmon returned to Ireland. That is down to 189,000 now. For every 100 juvenile salmon that left our rivers 20 years ago, 15 were coming back. That is down to about two now. They are leaving the river systems to a certain degree - not as many of them - but the numbers returning are way down. We believe that when they go to their feeding grounds, there is an interruption in food webs and trophic structures. Food availability is not there for them. They evolved over a long period to go to one place. It is not like us; if we do not get food somewhere, we go somewhere else. They do not do that. Climate change is a problem. In our work monitoring catchments, we have had probes out for a significant number of years. We are seeing temperatures going way above lethal temperatures for trout and salmon. They are dying in the middle of the summer in our river systems. There is nothing we can do about it because there is no tree cover to protect them. They cannot really go anywhere. When juvenile salmon and trout are in a certain age class, they do not move into deep water. They stay in a certain shallow substrate type so they are very vulnerable.

We are in discussions with the NPWS. I will meet Niall Ó Donnchú in December to discuss sharing powers between both agencies. I have no issue with authorised officers working for NPWS or other agencies having our powers and vice versa. If we had powers to enforce wildlife legislation or the habitats directive, for example, it would probably mean 200 additional people on the ground in the morning. There is a discussion to be had. The NPWS is open to that. My Minister and my Department are as well. Historically, agencies liked to hold onto their own enforcement responsibilities and powers - it was an attitude of "we will keep that". We are in a crisis. Nature needs to benefit from this and so does the taxpayer. If we can double up the powers I and my officers have on the ground, it would make a lot of sense.

Dr. Mícheál Ó Cinnéide

To take up what Mr. O'Donnell said, it was a very good question about what the rivers would be like. From my experience working in the EPA, where I was in charge of the water team for several years, nature has the capacity to recover if allowed to. That is true regarding water. As Mr. O'Donnell said, it is not just about controlling point source pollution. The actions of the Department of agriculture and Irish Water regarding pollution, the Arterial Drainage Act, which I will come back to, the OPW and Inland Fisheries Ireland were all seen as key in the citizens' assembly recommendations on fresh water. Going back to Deputy Kenny's question, the statistics are very clear from the EPA - the number one source of pressure on water quality is agriculture. About 60% of at-risk areas are at risk because of pressure from agriculture. The next biggest source is hydromorphology, which is hard to get across to the public but it means drainage.

Again, one of the two main sources of harmful drainage actions is farming, where they put in drains that are trying to dry up wetlands. The second goes back to arterial drainage. There are certainly issues there that need to be addressed.

I turn to the broader question about some of the recommendations or concerns. If I may briefly return to the national biodiversity action plan, the committee should have a copy of it before it concludes its work. I understand it was signed off by the Cabinet last month. I know we heard last week that it will not be published until January, but it is finished and ready. The draft available on the website is a previous draft. I will mark the committee's card on the three concerns I have when I look at that. The first is the language. It is written in the same language as the previous three biodiversity action plans, which is the language of the public sector, of which I have been a member for many years. It is to explore, to enact, to continue, to review, to examine, to identify, to assess and to build capacity. There are 180 actions, and it is all that kind of language. However, going back to Deputy Bruton's question the last day, the second issue is that it does not have any targets. By comparison, the climate action committee, with which this committee is familiar, has pretty clear targets for the country that need to be met. That means action that changes the impacts on the environment.

In a similar way, if you compare it with water, the water framework directive and river basin management plan have targets for the country that have to be met at local and national level. When the committee asked about targets the last day, the answer was that this is a high level plan and does not have geographical targets. If that is the case, then they very much remain incremental actions within organisations in the State sector. My third concern is when you look at the people responsible for these steps. The national biodiversity action plan has between approximately 160 and 180 actions, and it says who is responsible for all of them. It is in the draft. More than 80 of them out of 160 are the responsibility of the Department of housing - its own Department. That is fine. There are also the local authorities, the biodiversity action plan and the Heritage Council. If you consider the question of the locus of control, the citizens' assembly wanted a whole-of-government transformational approach to biodiversity. The answer we got the last day we were here was to leave it with you. We were told it was there, and more than 100 of the recommendations would be taken care of in the biodiversity action plan. First, they are not addressed in the same rigorous and robust way. Second, the locus of control is all within one Department - the Department of housing, which is doing a great job. It is responsible for the biodiversity action plan, the river basin management plan and the Marine Protected Areas Bill, and it will have a key role in nature restoration in four years' time.

Where does that leave the rest of Government with regard to biodiversity? It is not in as strong a place as the citizens would want. That is why I will go back to the other recommendations. When the committee is making its judgment on this, it needs to go further than what is already in the pipeline. It needs to say that National Parks and Wildlife Service is doing a great job in a particular area, but must strengthen its enforcement powers. On the previous occasion, we heard that everybody is responsible for enforcement. The committee saw the statistics from us, namely, 28,000 inspections per annum. There is a team of more than 150 people in IFI who do enforcement work. I worked in the EPA for ten years. It has 454 staff. The number of people working full time on enforcement and nothing else is 127. That is 30% of the EPA and more than 50% of IFI. You need to specialise and you need to focus and gather intelligence. Questions needed to be asked about why that is not being done in the nature restoration agency. Reform in Coillte, the OPW and Bord na Móna, and constitutional change, will strengthen what will, as a baseline, be the biodiversity action plan. I apologise for the long answer.

That was helpful.

As we are limited on time, I am moving back to the issue of barriers. When we hear the statistics about the numbers of returning salmon, it is awful and horrific. It is similar with eels. The numbers returning now are 8% of what we would have seen in the seventies. They are really at a critical point.

The biggest thing we can do is remediation and carry out the removal of barriers to those migratory species. I have been doing some work on this in Wicklow. One third of the upstream catchments in Wicklow cannot be accessed by migratory species because they are blocked in one way or another. We are working with IFI, through the East Wicklow Rivers Trust, on a remediation programme for a couple of weirs in Wicklow. this needs to be broadened out.

The biggest bang for our buck is when we look at State agencies. This goes across nature protection in general. It is about what the State agencies are doing and how we can manage that. It comes back to the Shannon and the barriers there, and how the ESB is managing the migratory patterns of salmon and eels going up through its systems. Is it true that IFI has no regulatory or statutory responsibility over what happens at the ESB stations?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

The ESB is required under law to make sure salmon and eels have free passage. However, some of the structures there were put in place were put in place 50 or 60 years ago. They are just not fit for purpose. Where there are major fish kills at those blockages, IFI would have a statutory remit. It is important to say that this conundrum has been here for quite some time. It was unsustainable. Over the past 18 months, we have worked very closely, through our parent Department, with some senior people in the Department of housing. We have just gone out to recruit a head of barriers. We also intend to take on 12 additional people next year, and 36 over three years. It is not that we are not focused on enforcement; we are more focused on finding a solution. We have been given a significant capital budget as part of the service level agreement with the Department of housing. Our plan initially is to take staff on for three years. There will be 36 people in four teams of engineers and specialists in this area, including our own research department, which will do the research on hydromorphology and the ecosystem benefits from that. To be fair to both agencies and to the Department of housing in particular, they are very committed to doing this. They did not have the expertise in this area.

We have a significant amount of expertise on barrier mitigation but we never had the resources or personnel. We have that now. There is a commitment and a memo has gone to Government on this issue. A concern I would have is that it is one thing doing it for three years but this is a 40- to 50-year programme. We have little barriers in rivers that are just little concrete lips that are causing the same problems throughout catchments. Take the Dodder, for example. I do not know how many barriers to fish passage are on the Dodder system. That is repeated all over the country. There are thousands; about 70,000 in total. It is a long-term thing, but we are getting into that space now. Whoever is successful in getting the position will recruit a full team over the next three years.

That is really positive. It is absolutely where we need to go and it is a long-term programme. It does take a long time to get these things done; to get them through the planning system and get the works are being done at the right time and so on.

On the ESB, Ardnacrusha and the like, there are conditions that could be put in place and things they could do to help mitigate in the absence of any structural changes or fish pass and all that kind of stuff. It could turn off the turbines during peak migratory season. Is that being done? If not, why?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

I cannot answer whether it is being done, but our head of operations and one of our RBD directors is on a working group with the ESB to look at these issues. In particular, eels migrate during very dark periods when there is no moon. We know from looking at commercial eel fisheries that this tends to be the case. We are working in that space.

Some 21% of the total run of eels going through Ardnacrusha die. That is an ESB statistic, and it has been said that it is an understatement.

Even if it is 21%, that is a huge number for a critically endangered species. Does the IFI have the authority to tell the ESB that it must stop the turbines or introduce similar measures? We have the facts. We know how many are going through and the impact on migratory species. We know when they are migrating, so why has that not been put in place?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

We do not have the legal authority to do that at the moment. That is factual.

Would the IFI welcome if its statutory responsibility from the perspective of the protection of these critically endangered fish species were to take into account the ESB electricity infrastructure?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

Any additional powers we would have that would protect migrating eels or salmon would be very welcome. There is also a very significant responsibility on the ESB, that has profits of more than €900 million, to put mitigation in place. To be fair to the ESB, it has agreed to supply two additional persons for eel and salmon research to work along with the IFI. It would recruit them and pay for that. Is it enough? Probably not, but it is still a step in the right direction.

What I am trying to do at my level is to work with the ESB and get it into a position, strategically, where it has to think of the future, its business model and how it is perceived by the Irish citizen. I am trying to be fair to the company today. I need to work with it and bring it to that place where that realisation is there for it as a business, because it has the money to make these changes if it wants to make them. I have no doubt my own Minister is pressing it, and pressing it very hard.

I will home in on recommendation No. 4 that says the responsibility for agencies must be clear, that there must be public accountability for the performance of agencies in respect of enforcement, and there needs to be an independent view of that implementation. Do we have such a process? Does the IFI work to specific and clear priorities it needs to deliver? Is the agency being independently reviewed?

That brings up the wider issue of enforcement. The witnesses have given us data on the number of prosecutions, but it really does not put it in context as to whether those prosecutions are improving the status of the river basins on which they are being enforced. We heard from the assembly that the number of pristine waters decreased from 500 rivers to 32, so plainly something is not working. Is it in the IFI's domain? The IFI has called for extra powers and penalties. We need to get the baseline of what is the enforcement position and whether we are actually enforcing. The citizens' assembly plainly thinks we are not, so I would like to just hear that.

I know the IFI has had difficulties recently with prosecutions. I saw reports that prosecutions had been withdrawn in the courts. Is that a legislative problem or are there other problems? That is the first thing we have to get right.

The assembly clearly thinks the system with dispersed enforcement on freshwater is not working and has called for a single, new agency. The assembly seems to call for two, one for freshwater and one overall. I am not sure if it is one and the same body. Is that where we are at? Do we need to see a single national agency that can say in respect of our river catchments, with some greater authority than the IFI has, what needs to be done by the different agencies that have their finger in the pie?

I was intrigued by the statement of Professor Ó Cinnéide about the NPWS saying enforcement is a job for everyone, and he was asking if that was the best way and seemed to point to some other approach. Is it that single agency approach? What is he calling for?

I entirely agree with what was said about the biodiversity plan. If the targets are not clear and the authority is not focused, a plan will not change anything. Do the witnesses agree the plan should be integrated with the climate plan so that we have oversight from the Taoiseach's office?

That has been a feature of the climate plan that has given a certain edge to this. It seems to me we are not going to tackle this unless we have a bit more circular thinking and pull these elements together into one area. That is enough to be going on with.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

There are three parts to the Deputy's question. I will endeavour to pick up all of them, and if I miss out on any aspect, please come back to me. In terms of what we do, we set out what our priorities as an agency are at the start of the year. It is broken out into RBDs, so we have a director in each river basin district. We clearly set out what is called a protection plan every year where we believe the hot spots are and where we believe, for the want of a better word, nefarious activity may be undertaken within those catchment areas. We have staff on the ground 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. We have an unusual system whereby we do not pay overtime but we have an unsocial hours allowance which allows us to put two teams in, sometimes within catchments, one team in from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the other team in from 10 p.m. until 4 a.m.

One of the Deputy's questions was whether our catchments are getting any better. We will break it out into fisheries first. With fishery officers on the ground within those catchments around the country, a lot of those river systems we know were being very intensively poached over the years have recovered where we increased our protection efforts in recent years in various parts of the country. We know that from looking at our catch data from counters. That is the first thing I would say. It is quite a hard metric to measure, but if we leave a salmon river, for example, in Donegal, Galway or Cork, unmanned for a summer season, I can guarantee at the end of the season there will be very little left there to talk about. That is the first thing.

In terms of water quality, we undertake water quality inspections all of the time. We respond to them all of the time. We take prosecutions in this area. We are probably down to doing 15 or 20 prosecutions per year. I do not believe it is enough. I believe that if we had more staff on the ground to detect water quality issues within catchments, because there is the diffuse aspect I spoke about and we have the point source, and we have to walk a river from top to bottom regularly to find out where that pollution is actually entering, so it is very resource intensive-----

Does the local authority do the same, walking the same bank of the river?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

Sorry?

Is the local authority walking it?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

No, the local authority would not be. When we are undertaking our anti-poaching patrols, as such, we also carry out water quality patrols at the same time. If we identify a problem we notify our environmental officers immediately. They come out on site and we track it back to wherever the source is coming from. That is part of a nearly secondary, cultural thing. Our fishery officers on the ground also hold warrants to prosecute for water quality offences, the same as our environmental officers. The environmental officer is the specialist, he or she, but the fishery officers on the ground also have the same authority. It is delegated to them to do that. We do our best in that area and with more boots on the ground. Fundamentally, when we are trying to protect wildlife, no matter what it is, for all the technology and all the remote sensing data in the world, if we are not actually in those catchments and physically on the ground, we really do not know what is happening and we cannot really do anything about it. We are relying on the public to notify us about something. The agency needs to be much more proactive and we try to be there. When we are doing a patrol of one particular type, we are not just doing that but also looking out for pollution at all times because we have a mandate. We are one of the few agencies, along with the EPA and the local authorities, that have the mandate to do that.

The Deputy asked about the legislative problems. Yes, we had a slight technicality as regards some of our cases. That issue has now been resolved. We did have to set aside a number of cases based on legal advice we got. It was a bit of a glitch. It is unfortunate but it is not the end of the world. We just have to move on from that and make sure our internal authorities and delegations are correct and are in place.

Was it a legislative defect?

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

It was a small defect and, through the Chair, it is legally privileged. I am not trying to avoid answering the Deputy's question. It is just because we had to stand some cases down. I do not want to say anything that would prejudice anything in relation to our agency. However, it is being resolved now and I am quite confident it is fine.

As for there being one freshwater agency, this goes back to what I said earlier.

When representatives of an environmental agency, like ourselves or the NPWS, are on the ground, it does not make sense to me that one of my officers operating in a catchment area who detects a fishery, water quality or habitat destruction offence would not also be able to prosecute it. In those cases, we would have to call out the wildlife service. Equally, if the wildlife service detects a poaching incident while on duty, we would have to be called out for the same reason.

We must have a conversation about the delegation and sharing of functions and powers. It is a very simple process. A Minister can delegate authority to any authorised officer. The intention should be the protection of wildlife in general, including the protection of water quality and fish. This would be a little like the model of the department of fish and game in the US, which is not a bad one. It would allow us to act in real time. When one of my officers would be writing up a statement on an incident of habitat destruction in that context, there would be no reason for him or her not to also be taking a prosecution against the same individuals for damaging a freshwater pearl mussel population. It would be good value and good for wildlife. I thank the committee.

I thank Mr. O'Donnell. I want to give time to Deputy O'Rourke and Senator Boylan to contribute, so I ask Dr. Ó Cinnéide to be as quick as he can.

Dr. Mícheál Ó Cinnéide

In response to the query from Deputy Bruton on it is about one agency being responsible for enforcement, I agree with the answer that Mr. O'Donnell gave, namely, that it is not about one agency necessarily being responsible for all enforcement in either freshwater or in nature. Rather, it is about there being better collaboration between agencies that have specialised and dedicated teams. The IFI and the EPA have them, but the NPWS does not seem to have taken this approach so far.

A review of the NPWS was carried out in 2021. I was one of the co-authors of the report. We had a public submission from the EPA then and it stated that collaboration in enforcement would be further advanced through the active participation of the NPWS in the national enforcement network. There is such a network. It is very strong and involves the sharing of intelligence and expertise between the EPA and local authorities. I worked for ten years as the director of the EPA. It was very difficult to get the NPWS to be part of that because it is not set up to be part of it. The organisation does not have an enforcement team. The NPWS has spoken of a wildlife unit. It is not clear whether it is fully functioning. In my view, it needs to be strengthened. Then the links that were mentioned, in respect of the NPWS working with the IFI, and in respect of there being cross-mandates and the sharing of expertise and intelligence with An Garda Síochána and the EPA, would bring us a long way in this regard.

Turning to the two questions from the Deputy, I agree that the statutory approach to biodiversity needs to be strengthened and brought up significantly. What we heard the last day was the biodiversity action plan, in its current format, will have a statutory basis. This is a step forward. I do not want to be too dismissive of it, but it is not enough. I say this because of what is contained in that plan. The statutory approach to biodiversity means that there will be an annual report on what is already there. We need to go much further with targets and link this more closely, statutorily, with climate and water protection. Those three areas must be in harmony and this is a challenge that has not been tackled yet.

Moving to the issue of national agencies, it is not likely that there will be one national agency, as such, for nature. The NPWS is filling this space. At a regional level, though, the river basin management plan refers to catchment fora for all the catchments. This would include the NPWS, fisheries and local NGOs. This needs to be progressed and strengthened. If we do not end up having one national agency, then more collaboration at regional level, including with the public, would greatly help. I thank the committee.

I thank Dr. Ó Cinnéide. There are approximately six minutes remaining. I ask Deputy O'Rourke and Senator Boylan to pose their questions one after the other. We will then go back to our guests.

Most of them have been covered by other speakers. For the benefit of the committee in producing its report on the back of these sessions on the Arterial Drainage Act 1945, the biodiversity action plan, as Dr. Ó Cinnéide said, does not go as far as calling for a review, whereas the citizens' assembly does do so. Any time I have even tried to broach this subject, my experience has been one where the topic has been used to frighten people and suggest that we just want to tear the thing up and flood the entire island. For the record, I would just like to hear how important Dr. Ó Cinnéide feels it is that we go back and at least examine that 80-year-old legislation and ensure it is fit for purpose.

I will go to Deputy O'Rourke.

I have two quick questions, the first of which relates to a workforce plan for the IFI. Is there such a plan or has a business case for one been submitted to the Department? What do the proposals in that regard look like or what would they look like?

Is there a particular case to be made for greater co-ordination along the River Shannon? In that context, I am conscious of the Shannon Callows and the summer flooding there. Surely a better approach could be taken.

Mr. Francis O'Donnell

We submitted a workforce plan to our parent Department approximately 18 months ago. Like all of the agencies under the remit of the Department, we are looking for resources. Yet, it was very detailed and it very much focused on the new space we are moving into. There are traditional fisheries management, fisheries protection and environmental protection, but the situation is becoming very complex. We did not believe, and still do not believe, we have enough environmental officers on the ground. We do not have enough specialists, such as ecologists and environmental scientists, working on the operations side either. We do our traditional research, which is important, but anything we now do on the operations side of the house will need screening, environmental consent, etc. We were stuck for 12 years at 312. Last year, we managed to get off “Go” for the first time in 12 years when we got an additional resource of ten individuals. We are hoping to get more this year, but it is not enough.

I am not being critical of our parent Department, which has pointed the compass in a different direction. Our Minister is very focused on environmental issues and the need to look at the wider environmental kaleidoscope that is out there, as well as the problems. He has asked the IFI to think about what we would look like 20 years from now. That workforce plan is there, and it is very detailed. We have asked for approximately an additional 140 staff. I know that is not realistic in the current economic climate, but if we are to tackle the challenges we are facing, we will need that level of investment within the organisation over a period of four or five years.

In the context of the Shannon, while I agree regarding the Shannon, there needs to be much better collaboration between agencies regarding all water bodies when it comes to protecting wildlife and what we are all doing to get the best out of that. I appreciate that the Shannon is important, but we have the remit to protect and look after all water bodies. It is a matter of better collaboration and delegation of functions and powers between the agencies, particularly around the habitats directive SI No. 477/2011. There are very strong legislative powers in place, and it is critical that a number of agencies have those powers. It is clear to citizens and members of the public about who has those powers and whether or not they are going to enforce them.

I am sorry for digressing. I have found from talking to the public in a number of fora lately that there seems to be confusion out there regarding who should be doing what. That confusion is a little bit around what we do as well. There is a bit of work for us to do there as well.

Dr. Mícheál Ó Cinnéide

Very briefly in response to Senator Boylan’s question about the Arterial Drainage Act 1945, there are three actions in the draft biodiversity action plan for the OPW about assessing drainage for biodiversity, assessing new flood relief schemes, etc. They are good actions insofar as they go. It is a start, but it is not enough. The legislation speaks to a period of time from the 1840s to the 1940s when local landlords or the State carried out large-scale drainage in many river systems, such as the River Boyne, the River Moy, the River Clare, etc. The legislation is still in place, so it trumps other biodiversity concerns. If you try to block something that is of concern from a biodiversity point of view, the Act is in place.

The Act needs to be reviewed because it is not fit for purpose from a biodiversity point of view, and has not been since it started in terms of the negative impact on spawning ecosystems and so on, and because of climate change, which possibly requires working a different way through nature-based solutions. It is time to hardwire these new ideas into the legislation as well as committing to the actions in the biodiversity plan.

It was a recommendation of a report conducted by this committee last year that the Arterial Drainage Act be reviewed. We will keep pushing in that regard.

It is now 12.15 p.m. Despite it being a short session, it has been incredibly informative and helpful for us. I thank our guests for being so clear, concise and direct in their answers. It is going to help us significantly as we get into the business of writing the report and achieving the political consensus I have talked about and recommending to Government how to take this great challenge further. I thank Mr. O'Donnell and Dr. Ó Cinnéide for their attendance and for travelling so far. It is important to say that. They both undertook long journeys to be here for a short session and it is appreciated. It is important they did so.

Sitting suspended at 12.16 p.m. and resumed at 12.36 p.m.

Apologies have been received from Deputy Alan Farrell. On behalf of the committee, I welcome members of the Children and Young People's Assembly on Biodiversity Loss to the meeting: Niamh, Elsie, Oisín, Eleanor, Conor and David. I also welcome our visitors in the Public Gallery. By way of introduction, my name is Brian Leddin. I am a Green Party TD for Limerick. I was elected to the Dáil in 2020 and have been Cathaoirleach of the joint committee since September of that year.

The committee was referred the report of the Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss for our consideration in June of this year. We have undertaken a robust examination of the assembly’s work to inform the drafting of our own report, with recommendations for the Government, which we expect to publish in the coming weeks. As part of that examination, the committee has agreed to continue its dialogue with young people in recognition of the key role they play in tackling climate change, having held a number of engagements with young people in the Seanad Chamber last year. We look forward to hearing the perspectives of the young people before us today and having a meaningful engagement with them.

As I do at the start of every meeting, I will read out the note on privilege. The witnesses should not worry about it too much. It is to remind our guests that we have a long-standing parliamentary practice 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 name of that person or entity. If witnesses' statements are potentially problematic or defamatory, I will ask them to stop at that point. They will have to listen to me, basically, and comply with any such direction.

I will now hand over to Niamh.

Niamh

I hope everyone present is well. As the Cathaoirleach mentioned, my name is Niamh. I am 16 years old, from County Waterford and a member of the young advisory team here presenting the assembly today. I will deliver a short opening address and facilitate a questions and answers session with the other young people, but feel free to ask me questions as well.

With me today are five amazing young people, four of whom are assembly members and one of whom is a fellow young adviser. They will introduce themselves shortly. I will take this opportunity to thank the parents and guardians of these young people for their continuous support of the assembly and, of course, for attending today.

We are joined by two of our wonderful project leads, Katie and Diarmuid, whose continuous hard work, support and enthusiasm made the project inspiring. I extend my heartfelt thanks to them, to the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, for his continuous support, and to each member of the committee for having us here today.

I speak for the entire assembly when I say that young people can look to this project as a source of hope and comfort.

Before we begin today's proceedings, there is something I would like us all to remember. This assembly focused on change being made by the children for the children. It sought to make a better world for our youth and to uphold their environmental rights, and to make enough change for children to voice their opinions without fear. The drive for this change lives in each of us here today and in all of the rest of our assembly members and young advisers.

We envisage a better world. This has been brought to life with the assembly, where the voices of children and young people are a central part of the solution to any problem. This is not simply about ticking a box to say we listened. It is about the children of today who tremble in fear for their future and the children of tomorrow whose burden these issues of climate change and biodiversity loss should not be to bear. Our youth, both present and future, must be protected, for where lies the way forward if not in them? When their drive for action is vanquished, where lies our hope? When they despair, how can there possibly be a light at the end of this long and dark tunnel? There is no future if not in them.

Without further ado, I will hand over to our other young people here today for them to introduce themselves.

Eleanor

Hello. My name is Eleanor. I am 16 and I am from County Kildare.

Conor

Hello. My name is Conor. I am 12 years old and I am from Dublin.

Elsie

Hello. I am Elsie. I am nine years old and I am from Tipperary.

David

Hello. I am David. I am 13 years old and I am from Mayo.

Oisín

Hello. I am Oisín. I am 14 years old and I am from Galway.

Niamh

Cathaoirleach, we are now ready to play the video.

The joint committee viewed an audiovisual presentation.

Niamh

I thank the committee for playing that video. Now it will hear from some of the young people involved in our assembly and a fellow young adviser. I will start with Elsie. As young advisers, Elsie and I were involved in creating and designing the assembly, which was really fun. Could she tell us about why she wanted to be a young adviser and what her role was?

Elsie

I wanted to be a young adviser because I love animals and I live next to a forest. I live on a mountain with a forest very close by. My role was to help to create the assembly and come up with ideas for how to do things.

Niamh

It was really great. We had lots of fun.

One year on, how do you feel about the impact of the assembly?

Elsie

I feel that the impact was really strong, that we were taken seriously and that this will not be forgotten.

Niamh

That is very important. Why do you think it is important for children and young people to be involved in decisions about biodiversity?

Elsie

Because it is our future and whatever happens now is going to have an impact on the rest of our lives, so the decisions that are made here are going to have an impact.

Niamh

Exactly, Elsie, very well said. Thank you. I want to move on to Eleanor. What was your favourite part of being an assembly member?

Eleanor

There are so many great parts about being in the assembly. My favourite part was the relationships I have formed with so many inspiring and enthusiastic young people from all over Ireland and to be able to do that while working on a project that we are all passionate about. To create awareness of biodiversity loss and to listen to young people's voices was so rewarding.

Niamh

That is great to hear. Which call to action is most important to you and why?

Eleanor

I am not sure what my favourite call to action is because there are so many - there are 58 - but the key message that I like the most is that biodiversity protection must be a shared responsibility and a global collaborative effort. I feel that, at its core, this represents our need to join together to work on these complex issues and, hopefully, make real change in our communities.

Niamh

The vision that you have is very inspiring. One year on, how do you feel about the effect the assembly has had?

Eleanor

There have been so many impacts on so many levels but I feel the biggest impact is having children’s voices listened to and not made into something that is trivialised. It has been so different to have our voices listened to on a level where I feel that you can look at something. That is exactly what we did and this is the change that we have made.

Niamh

Long may it continue. Thank you, Eleanor, that was really valuable feedback. To move on to Oisín, which call to action is most important to you and why?

Oisín

I feel that all of the education calls to action are the most important. I often find that biodiversity is overshadowed by other global issues, like climate change and global warming. It will be the children of today who will eventually be making decisions for the country and if they are not aware of biodiversity loss, then it is just going to be forgotten about and those decisions will not be taken into account. That is one of the reasons I feel that education is important.

Niamh

That is a really good reason. One year on, how do you feel about the impact of the assembly?

Oisín

Personally, I feel we did a huge amount in combating biodiversity loss. We have our 58 calls to action and we also have the TRIBE project. It has one part for primary schools, which is teaching children about biodiversity using fun, interactive and, most importantly, educational activities. Then, for post-primary schools, we have resources that teachers can download and share with their classes, and we have questions to make it more fun and more interactive for the secondary school students.

Niamh

I am glad you brought in the TRIBE project because that was developed from our assembly’s call to action, so it is a very important project for getting it outside the assembly room. Thank you. My final question is why you think it is important for children and young people to be involved in decisions about biodiversity.

Oisín

I feel is not just important for children but crucial, because it will be us who will feel the worst if biodiversity is lost and it will be us, our children and our grandchildren who will be most severely impacted. I feel it is completely necessary for children and young people not only to have their voices heard but acknowledged and taken into account in decisions.

Niamh

Very well said, Oisín, thank you. I will move on to Conor. Why did you apply to be an assembly member and how did it feel when you found out you were randomly chosen?

Conor

I applied to be an assembly member because I believe that children should have a voice in our future and I thought that was very important. I felt very lucky and very grateful to be chosen for the assembly because there was a very small chance of me being picked and I felt like I made a big impact on it. I felt very grateful overall that I was chosen for it.

Niamh

That is wonderful to hear. What three words would you use to describe the assembly?

Conor

There is a lot you could use but the ones I would choose are probably “fun”, “educational” and “opportunity”. I felt like it was not too serious. It had a level of seriousness that you needed to actually get something done but it was not so boring that you would lose interest in it.

Niamh

Those are pretty valuable words to describe our assembly gathering. Why does Conor think it is important for children and young people to be involved in decisions about biodiversity?

Conor

It is really important for children to be involved in not just biodiversity but also in lots of governmental decisions because it is our future. Our future cannot just be chosen by people who are not going to live through it. Children are the future and our future cannot be decided by someone who is not going live to see that future. It needs to be decided by the people who are going to be in that future. I really want Ireland in the future to be a place that we want to visit.

Niamh

I thank Conor for his very strong message. Finally, we have David. Why did he apply to be an assembly member and how did he feel when found out he had been chosen?

David

My mum applied for me on the last day we could apply. Since she applied at the last minute, we did not think I would get in. I did and we were quite shocked and excited because this is something I had not heard of. It was a complete surprise and we did not think I would get in because my mum applied at the last minute.

Niamh

I am sure David was very excited.

David

Yes, extremely.

Niamh

What did David learn from being a part of the assembly?

David

I learned that biodiversity is an important part of our way of life that needs to be conserved. I also learned that the media generally just focuses more on climate change and global warming and not such much on biodiversity because it is something that happens right in front of you. Biodiversity is something that happens in one's back garden. One can see that there are fewer bees, for example. If one lives by the coast - I live on the west coast - one can see that there may be fewer numbers of a certain type of fish or fewer seals.

Niamh

That is a very good point. Has being involved in the assembly had an impact on David, the people in his life or at a local or national level?

David

I think that my involvement has had an impact of me because I have made a few friends from it and it has prompted me to be more careful when making life decisions about, for example, fast fashion. One cannot buy clothes and then throw them away. Instead one should try to reuse clothes, make them last a while, or save them and give them to someone else, perhaps a younger member of one's family. One can pass clothes on to them, thus saving them money while contributing to combating climate change, global warning and biodiversity loss.

Niamh

That is a very good answer. I thank David and everyone else for participating.

Before I hand back proceedings to the Chairman, Deputy Leddin, our assembly members have a question for committee members. We would like to know what are the next steps the committee plans to take because of the impact of the assembly.

Before we try to answer that question, I thank Niamh for facilitating this discussion with her colleagues from the Children and Young People's Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. The points that have been made are very pertinent and important for us to hear. We appreciate the delegation voicing their points directly to us. I invite members not just to ask questions but also to answer the very important question about the next steps we are going to take as a committee to take this matter forward.

I thank our guests for all of their input. A huge amount of work has been done, which is fantastic. It is really important for the delegation to ask their question. They have done their bit so they have asked us what are we going to do now. We are all involved in different political parties but we are all here because we share the same passion for the environment and biodiversity and want to make recommendations about what we think should happen. There have been quite a few citizens' assemblies. This is the first citizens' assembly where we have had the voice of young people and children so now we have the ability to make recommendations and do what they have said and that pushes us forward. We will ask Ministers to come back to us with answers. We will ask them if they have done this, that and the other, which is a really important part of the process.

Three important things have happened here. First, the Children and Young People's Assembly on Biodiversity Loss has prepared recommendations on biodiversity. Second, tools have been developed for schools. This is an extra thing that the other citizens' assemblies have not done, which means this assembly has gone even further.

The last, which I am very interested in, is how this can be a blueprint for future citizens’ assemblies. One on education is coming up, for instance. How our guests feel this has worked will then inform how we do other things. They are trailblazers, in a way, and they will leave a lasting legacy beyond biodiversity. Can I ask questions now?

Yes, go ahead.

Recommendation 8 is about having children involved in decision-making and recommendation 15 is about setting up a citizens’ assembly on a permanent basis. Now that our guests have been involved in the decision-making, do they think it makes them more likely to take actions within their own lives and push forward policies that will make the difference in biodiversity? If they do, that is a strong message to Government to show why it makes a difference to do this on a permanent basis and why it makes a difference to be involved in decision-making. As members and citizens, we will also take the actions. It is a strong argument. I am interested in what the guests have to say about that.

Eleanor said she had no particular favourite, but we are all interested in different things. Does she feel she has come out of this with a particular area she is interested in? She mentioned fast fashion, which was one I pointed out to myself as well. There were also a couple of recommendations around reducing meat in the diet, which has come out of both of the citizens’ assemblies and we need to follow that through.

How important is it to support people? I have seen that throughout the document – supporting businesses and supporting farmers as well as having regulations.

I asked a few questions. Anyone who wants to come in can do so.

If our guests want time to think about their answers, we can go to some other members first and then go back to them to answer a few of those questions together.

I thank our guests for their work and input. The question asked is quite valid: what do we do here? Basically, our job is to go through and examine the report produced by the citizens' assembly. We take in witnesses from various sectors of society and various players from the farming community, business and everywhere else, get their views on it and then ascertain from that what we can practically do. Sometimes, some of the recommendations and some of the things they suggest will go further even than what was in the citizens’ assembly. Some of them say this will be difficult to do. I am trying to get the practical stuff that can happen and make a difference.

The lesson from all of it is a lesson that our guests have learned as well. We all depend on each other. We are an interdependent community. We are also interdependent on nature and the whole environment around us. We have to be careful not to damage it or do anything that will tip the balance. Unfortunately, much has been done that has tipped the balance in the wrong way in the past, and much of that is because of policies that were implemented in the past. We have to look at all of that, see what we can do to correct some of those past mistakes and make sure there are not unintended consequences from the stuff we do now.

There is much work to be done and we are grateful for the work our guests have done. Many of their recommendations have great foresight and look to the future. Their adult lives will be better because of the work they did here, which is what I think we all want to see happen.

Regarding some the issues the guests mentioned, I was just looking at some of the recommendations. I was quite struck with the one about education and raising awareness – that whole sector. When they talk to adults, do they find that adults are sometimes resistant to this stuff? Many of us find that other people are resistant to it and are inclined to be sceptical and not sure of science.

What role do they feel young people have in being the leaders in making that change happen?

I thank the guests for their presentation. How did they find the process of each of them getting a card indicating which member of the community they were when they were addressing the issue? That is often the biggest problem we face as a community. If you are a farmer, you see things differently than if you are a member of an environmental organisation or a businessperson. How did that work for them? Much of our problem is how to mobilise people who come from all those dispersed points of view and get them to agree to a programme. The very same issue that confronted the guests and to which they took that approach is what confronts us.

Other speakers have said what our job is now. We have to take the headings the guests have given, which are similar to the citizens’ assembly – education, governance, the various sectoral areas, species and so on – and come up with practical proposals around enforcement, funding, change and regulation. We have to come up with a suite of things we think will drive this agenda on.

In respect of my own personal interest, I am keen to plug the notion of the circular economy. The idea behind the circular economy is that the cycle of everything we do should be examined, from choosing the materials that make up products right through to what we dump or do not dump, and apparently two thirds of what goes into the black bin should not be there at all. I think that brings the community together. The farmer has a responsibility but so do we as consumers, as well as the businesses retailing and the manufacturers. I think that if you create that bigger tent, you have a better chance of pulling people together. I have done much work on the circular economy, so that is my personal “What next?” response.

I will go back to Niamh now and she can delegate as she wishes. A few questions were asked. I will get to Senator O’Reilly’s question, but Deputy Kenny’s was about the guests’ engagement with adults and whether they feel adults are sceptical about this process. He also talked about their role and the importance of their voice. Deputy Bruton asked a similar question on how they found the process they were involved in and how it worked for them to agree a programme of work. There was also the question on the circular economy and waste. Do they have anything to say about that as well?

Niamh

Is there anyone who would like to answer any of those questions? David can go ahead.

David

I am not too sure who asked this question but I think it was with the circular economy. There are different people and different sectors, for example, farmers, cows, cattle and livestock, that all produce methane, which is a greenhouse gas, which cannot be stopped because they are that sort of animal. Factories that make clothes will probably produce greenhouse gases since they use fossil fuels to make clothes, and plastic is made of oil and fossil fuels as well. It is quite a hard problem to solve. However, there are other ways to do things. We could focus more on natural material, such as flax or cotton. Cotton is quite consuming in that it uses a lot of water. There could be more of an emphasis on people who produce flax and different natural materials that humans have been using for thousands of years. If there are more expenses, they could charge more. It could be advertised more. People could be charged more for buying stuff made out of polyester.

Not all of the materials that are used can be replicated using natural material. Obviously, there will have to be some form of processing to fix these.

In terms of food, there are substitutes, but it is still important to have a varied diet of different meats and then proteins and carbohydrates. Many of these things come from livestock. There are schemes through which people can be rewarded for planting more trees but not when it comes to issues where the root of the problem could be the livestock. There is also insect farming, although that might not be as suited to our climate as it could be to other climates.

There could be more emphasis on vegetarian diets and plant substitutes because some plants and certain foods contain more protein, for example, peanut butter or any form of nuts. A fair few nuts will contain protein, although not as much as we might get in meat. There is also the option of fish, which also contains protein. If there was less focus on red meat, there would probably be less methane. Farmers could start focusing on other meats and different plants, herbs and vegetables, which would give a person all his or her body needs to work. The same thing goes with clothing.

Even with bins, there probably needs to be a scheme through which people are told very clearly what goes in which bin. Therefore, instead of referring to waste by using words regular people might not understand, for example for something like polyester, we might say that a crisp packet will go into one bin instead of another. Then, the black bin is not really a bin; it is kind of a bin for everything else. Many materials could be recycled and reused if they were treated properly. Things are just going into the black bin and then dumped. I am not saying we should make loads of new bins, but they could be more clearly defined and used in terms of trying to recycle or finding some way of making sure the contents do not get just dumped and burned. Instead, they could be reused in some way. This can be facilitated by more clearly advertising what goes into which bin so that people are not throwing the wrong thing into the wrong bin. In this way, our circular economy could probably work a lot better.

That was a very thorough answer to Deputy Bruton. David is very at home in this committee. He could give us all a run for our money here. I thank him for that answer. Does anybody else wish to come in on those questions? Conor may go ahead.

Conor

I would like to follow up on Deputy Kenny's question. I believe there is a lot of scepticism in adults. I am not saying this applies to all adults because there are definitely some who are trying to help. However, there are some people who do not believe that children can do the same as adults can, which is false. I get where they are coming from because we do not have experience, but that can be attained.

The second point the Deputy made was to ask about young people's role in motivating older people who are sceptical about recycling and not throwing away stuff. We just need to inspire them and try to put the message through. Some of them think they will not be here by the time the Earth is gone so they may as well throw things away. People are saying that it will be gone in 2 billion years, but they do not realise that it is not only over if the world explodes. The causes are the icebergs melting, temperatures rising and sea levels rising.

I was in County Kerry last year where I saw a house that was literally only a few metres away from the sea. The people said that in a few months it would be waterlogged and drowned, and they will have to move somewhere else, which will cost them a lot of money. I feel like it is more about now and not about saying that it will be a few million years and we will already be gone by then, or that we will be off on Mars. It is not really about that. It is not about the world ending. It is about making the world a better place. That is what I wanted to say.

I thank Conor. That was very well put. I want that message to go out to everybody outside this committee room and across the whole political system. It is such a critically important point. It is not about the never-never; it is actually about the now. Does Niamh wish to come in?

Niamh

With regard to what Conor said, he answered well on whether adults are sceptical. Some definitely are, but something we also have to address when talking about that is how we can get rid of that scepticism. The answer, very simply put, is to run more assemblies like this. We have to start facing up to the fact that there is a little bit of stigma attached by some people to listening to the voices of young people and children. Like Conor said, they think we are inexperienced and that we possibly do not know what we are talking about. Education is the key, and we have proven that through the assembly because members are all sitting here today with 58 calls to action in front of them, which are actually going to be acted upon. That is a first in this country.

The way we can expand that and keep it going is by having more of these assemblies on a regular basis and making them available to everyone. It is the only way we are going to inspire our youth - by getting them involved, telling them their voice actually matters and showing them how they can voice it to get their opinions out there. They are the future. As I said earlier, there is no way forward if they are not part of it. If they are the ones who are going to have to live with this, they should have a say in what is going to happen.

I thank Niamh for that. She has very much answered Senator O'Reilly's question about the importance of having youth citizen assemblies. This the first one we have had so it is certainly something the Oireachtas should consider as we go forward for other citizens' assemblies. Senator O'Reilly also asked whether Niamh had any particular recommendations she feels passionately about. She might want to have a think about that. I will move to other members now. I call Deputy Whitmore.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for their presentation and all the work they did in the assembly. It is clear they are incredibly passionate about this issue and it is great to see that passion expressed in this document. When they got involved initially, they had to apply and, obviously, biodiversity loss was something in which they were all interested. Is it something they were worried about? I personally get quite worried about it. Has the process of being in the assembly and learning and discussing and coming up with tangible solutions and recommendations helped address those concerns and feelings? Sometimes people can feel quite helpless. Has this helped them with that? Is there a way we can get that to other children as well so they know that, yes, it is a big problem and it is complex, but if we work on it, we can actually take some ownership of it and, therefore, that will help them feel better in how it is being addressed?

I will go to another member and then maybe we will go back to the witnesses. Deputy O'Rourke is next.

I thank the witnesses for all of their work on this assembly. It is a really important contribution to the work of this committee and, it is hoped, the work of Government. I hope that will be borne out by the actions on the recommendations. There is one area I want to focus on, which is the recommendations around transport. It is a particularly difficult area for Ireland. We have very particular challenges with regard to transport because we use a lot of fossil fuels and we are heavily car dependent. I noticed that the recommendations point towards opportunities to increase public transport. Much Government policy points towards the opportunity to create positive habits in younger people in order that they might increasingly use public transport or walk or cycle and then take that into adulthood. Do the witnesses think there are opportunities to increase the number of trips that are taken on bicycles and people walking to school and other areas?

Another recommendation is with regard to reducing the cost of public transport and increasing accessibility. Would that encourage them and their friends and school mates to do the same?

I will summarise the questions for the witnesses. Deputy Whitmore asked whether you are worried about biodiversity and whether this process you have been involved in helped to make you feel a bit better and feel there is a way forward and there are solutions. Deputy O'Rourke's focus was on transport and what you think about increasing public transport and opportunities for walking and cycling, and making it safer to do so and the cost of all this. Do the witnesses have anything to say about this?

Eleanor

There is a lot of climate doom in our society, including about biodiversity. It is like news; we hear about all of the bad things that happen and about how much has gone wrong. This is vital and we need accountability when bad things happen but we often fail to address all the good that happens. We need to know about the improvements that have been made. Take forestry, for example. At the beginning of the 20th century we had 1% forest cover and now we are up to 11%. This is a big improvement. I know it is a small victory but we need to focus on these also because it gives us hope for the future. If we take small steps and try to take personal responsibility and do the right things ourselves, even if Ireland is a small country we will make a difference.

Everyone feels down about things when they are going wrong and we feel overwhelmed about what needs to be fixed but this is how we get there. The only way to change something is to know that it can be changed and have hope for it. Young people are particularly good at this because we have a long future and if we do not have hope we will not have anything at all. It is very important.

Elsie

I will speak about the question on public transport. Public transport is a lot better than cars or vans or other transport owned by someone. It brings a lot more people where they want to go, using less energy than all of those people's personal transport combined. Public transport is a lot better. It is a lot more friendly for the environment.

Thank you, Elsie. That is a really important message and one we have been trying to get across to our colleagues in the Dáil and the Seanad. It is very important that you have said this and that we hear it.

David

In response to Deputy O'Rourke's question, public transport is good but it could be so much better. In Italy, England and France there are metros in the large cities but we do not have this. This would cut out so much. We have the Luas but it is only in Dublin. It is slow and unreliable. It is not great.

We had a train line direct from Galway to Limerick but if I go to Limerick, where I have family, I have to get a train to Athlone first and then to Limerick. This is a long, slow, painful and indirect journey. We need more trains up and running. I know there are plans for this but it cannot be over the next ten years. We need it now. If it is going to happen now changes need to be made. Buses are great but they can only hold so many people. They are not everywhere. Some buses can go up and down the country but not all can. This is why we also need more of an emphasis on trains and a better public transport system in cities, such as the Luas but far more efficient.

Some places in rural areas are very disconnected from towns and where people go to school. It is not possible for people living there to cycle to school. It is important to have an emphasis on cycling to school. In cities cycling is probably far more efficient than using a car or walking but cycling is not an option for people who live in rural communities.

When I go to school I have to travel in my parents' car from my house to town and then from town I have to get a bus to where my secondary school is. We live right on the coast. It is important to have an emphasis on public transport but it will not answer all of our carbon emission problems. We will have to keep cars. Perhaps they can be electric but we will have to keep them for certain people. Some people cannot use a bus or cycle to work because it could be so far away. They could be in a rural community that is not connected. There are no trains going to the middle of the countryside unless there is an urban area nearby. Public transport is important and it needs to be improved but it will not help everyone to get everywhere.

Thank you, David. We will have to get you into the transport committee. They could learn a thing or two from you.

Oisín

I also want to answer Deputy O'Rourke's question on transport. If we want people to cycle we need cycle lanes to make it safe to do so. I know many people who are discouraged from cycling to school and work because it is not safe to do so because of traffic, especially in cities. It is too dangerous and there is a risk of being hit by a car.

With regard to buses and trains we need low fares, or even no fares, to encourage people to take the bus. A car seems to be a much more convenient option in the short term. In the long term we do not have infinite fossil fuels. We will end up running out of them and not being able to supply cars unless they are electric. This will take a while to introduce. Some people cannot afford electric cars. With regard to buses, older people would not be able to make their way out to a bus stop if it is far from their house to get into town. As David said, public transport needs some improvement.

Niamh

I have a very quick note to add. I am from a little town in Waterford called Tramore. I was working with a TD and a local councillor during the summer because public transport stops on the bus system were being removed. There was talk of this happening. This is the opposite of what we should be doing. We need to encourage these options because they are greener. Removing stops will discourage people from using public transport. I do not know whether this was brought to the attention of the committee but it is something that needs to be worked on.

Believe it or not it was brought to my attention because I was speaking with my colleague who lives Tramore. He told me all about it. Thank you, Niamh. This is evidence of your voice being heard.

I thank the witnesses for all of their work in the assembly and for presenting today. To give a short answer to their question to us, we need to look at the detail of all of the recommendations because they are very solid. Two recommendations in the governance section have struck me, with regard to making sure there are regulations that business and industry must work in a green way, and making sure that existing environmental protection laws are being enforced and money is put into this. Conor spoke about seriousness. If we are serious about this we will try to make sure there are regulations and laws, because our job is to make them, and make sure that they get enforced so they are not gestures but something serious.

A few areas in the recommendations are very interesting. David spoke about recycling and reusing. An area the recommendations zone in on is mining. We need minerals for the climate transition but we also want to make sure we protect the environment. How do we make sure we reduce the amount of mining we have to do by reusing materials, for example, the precious metals that we have in computers, phones and cars? Perhaps David might like to say more about this. I think it is very interesting.

Our guests also talked about business. It is not just about adding in environmental businesses or industries but changing what we do and doing things in a different way. It is not just about adding an environmental option but changing what we might normally do in business. Our guests might wish to comment on that point. One area that is strong in that regard and which is a big change for Ireland to make is with respect to meat and around considerations such as the size of our national herd. The assembly has many recommendations around the need to reduce the size of the herd and includes many detailed ideas.

Eleanor mentioned the global piece. Is part of that responsibility to ensure we make decisions on biodiversity and also make decisions that support biodiversity in other parts of the world? We need to ensure we are not pushing industries, including the meat and dairy industries, on parts of the world where it might diminish their environment and biodiversity. Perhaps our guests could talk about the global piece. How do we ensure we do business in a way that is good here, good for others and good for the planet?

There are great recommendations for national parks, which is an issue I care about. I am trying to bring in legislation around Coillte and Bord na Móna, which has 8% of all the land. The assembly's report talks about giving more land over for biodiversity. I liked that the report refers to urban land as well as, say, our forests and other areas we can turn into national parks. It acknowledges the importance of biodiversity in urban lands.

I love the following recommendation, which I have not seen before. We, as a committee, should try to bring it forward. It relates to creating a network of wildlife corridors, paths, tunnels and bridges across Ireland. It is the idea that when we do planning, we also plan for how wildlife will move. It is like the pollinator plan for bees, which I am sure the assembly discussed, and their pathways. This recommendation is thinking bigger about wildlife and how it moves across the country. That is another part of transport.

I would be interested if our guests could talk more about any of those areas. I thank them again for all their work.

I thank the Senator, who I should have welcomed back to the committee. I thank her for her contribution. Some things have not changed. She still manages to get many questions in during the time allocated to her. Let that be instructive to our guests, who can certainly learn from Senator Higgins.

I thank our guests for the presentations. I will go back to the recommendations around education. I used to work in Killarney National Park education centre. I am not sure if that was where the assembly held its second session but if it was, our guests were very lucky to be there. What others have said is that our guests opted in and were lucky to be selected. They are like me in having an interest in biodiversity. To expand on the assembly's recommendations about education, what do we need to do to bring that interest and passion for nature and wildlife to everybody else to try to encourage classmates, friends and neighbours to have the same passion and interest in biodiversity? Those people in Wicklow and Kerry are very lucky, but Conor and I live in Dublin and do not have the same resources around us. Is it important to facilitate people to go to education centres, to get up close and personal with nature and to encourage the idea that we are a part of nature and not in control of it? I would like to hear the views of our guests as to how we can encourage everybody to develop a passion for biodiversity.

The rights of nature came up in recommendation 7 of the assembly's report. It also features in the citizens' assembly report. I would love to hear how our guests arrived at that recommendation and where it came from. I am passionate about that idea that nature should be protected in its own right and not just because it provides food for us and ecosystems services and all those phrases. I would be interested to hear how our guests arrived at that position. I would also like to hear a little more about the recommendations on wildlife crime and invasive species.

I thank the Senator. Our guests can see they are getting just as much of an interrogation as our regular guests. We will not have time to facilitate our guests to give lengthy answers because there are other elements to their programme to which they need to get. I will call Deputy O'Sullivan before I go back to our guests to answer, as best they can, the questions that have been put to them.

I know I arrived late to the meeting but I was tuned in and heard every word. I have heard everything our guests have said and I saw the presentation, which was fantastic. Fair play to our guests. If I was 16 or nine years old, there is not a hope I would have come up to an Oireachtas committee meeting, which is televised live, to answer all these questions. I can tell our guests they are brave. I thank them for what they are doing.

I have a few questions to get straight to it. I would love to hear about our guests' trips for field work to Killarney and Wicklow. Did they get down and dirty? Did they investigate some of the species that are in trouble, whose numbers might be decreasing or whose habitats might be declining? I would love to hear a bit about that work. I would love to hear about the field work our guests got into. What did they learn from that type of field work, if it did happen? Were there alarming statistics in respect of some of the species and how their numbers are reducing? Were there positive stories? I know our guests mentioned some positives that we sometimes do not highlight. Were there good stories about other species and how proper habitat measures have allowed them to bounce back? That is my first question.

I would love to know how our guests got on with the Minister of State, Malcolm Noonan. I saw in their presentation that he was there. I think he is pretty sound but I would love to know how our guests got on with him. He made our guests an important promise. He said he will ensure that the recommendations of the assembly will be put in policy. That is a big promise and we have to make sure he holds up to that. An important document, the national biodiversity action plan, will be produced shortly. It will set out the points. Did the Minister of State promise our guests that their solutions will be included in that? What happens if they are not? Do we have to hold him to account to make sure they are in the national biodiversity action plan? That is important.

I love recommendation 5, which states that biodiversity protection must be a shared responsibility and a global collaborative effort. The reason I love that is because we can do a lot of measures for certain species but they might be migratory. A good example is the swift. Everyone knows what a swift looks like and they scream around our towns during the summer. We could make new legislation that would require every new building to have a swift box. That would be good because it would help to provide them with a breeding habitat. However, those birds move to completely different areas of the world during the winter and those countries may not have the same focus on protecting them. How do we make that collaborative global effort? Have our guests reached out to other youth citizen's assemblies? Are there other youth citizens' assemblies around biodiversity? What should we do around that?

I can sense the passion for biodiversity in our guests. I get that when as a TD, I call around to schools. I meet a lot of kids who love biodiversity. They love talking about whales, dolphins and sharks. They cannot get enough of it. Do our guests think that sometimes, as we get older, we start to lose that? We become more focused on getting a job and on family. Those things that were priorities start to slip away. Do our guests think that happens? How do we stop that from happening? How do we keep adults interested in saving biodiversity and getting excited about it?

There was a lot there. I thank our guests again for coming in.

I thank the Deputy. For our guests' benefit, I will summarise some of the questions asked and the areas mentioned. I do not expect our guests to address them all but if there are any of particular interest to any of our guests, I ask them to indicate and they can speak to it. Senator Higgins talked about the importance of enforcement and the interesting area of the mining of precious materials. She said that while we need to do a certain amount of it, we also need to be recycling those that have already been mined. She also talked about changing our current practices in our own lives. She mentioned our diets. She also mentioned the global piece. It is not just about what is happening in our own communities; there is also a huge global piece, if our guests having anything to say about that. On a more local level, there is the issue for some of our guests of the challenge of biodiversity loss in urban areas. Senator Higgins also mentioned the idea of establishing a network of wildlife corridors. She asked how our guests came up with that idea and asked them to say more about it.

Senator Boylan talked about education.

How do we ensure every young person gets up close and personal with nature? We do not all live in the countryside.

There was a critical question from Senator Boylan about the rights of nature. Should we be looking to enshrine the rights of nature in our Constitution? She also mentioned a wildlife crime unit. That has been talked about quite a lot. Have the witnesses anything to say on that?

Deputy O’Sullivan wants to know what the witnesses learned from their trips to Wicklow and Killarney. What was alarming and what was positive? Do they have anything to say on specific species, endangered species decline and so on? What do they think of Malcolm Noonan?

Maybe they should not answer that.

He was here for the start of the presentation. He sat up at the back. That shows how seriously he takes the issue and how seriously he regards the witnesses’ voices. He is an incredibly busy person but took the time to sit in.

Deputy O’Sullivan talked about the challenge we have as we get older. We all start out with so much passion for changing things, but as we engage with the system, that passion can be dented and eroded. How do we maintain the passion the witnesses have? How can they inspire us to be as passionate as we were when we started out? Do the witnesses want to speak to any of those? All the hands are going up. I am mindful the witnesses have to have lunch and are getting a tour of Leinster House, so I ask them to be as brief as they can in answering.

Niamh

I am really happy Senator Boylan asked about education because that is my background as a climate activist. I come from the Irish Schools Sustainability Network. I was a leading student ambassador on that for two years, so a lot of my groundwork is getting that education into schools.

Something I would encourage is nature engagement. To expand on that, last year during my transition year programme we got an outdoor classroom. We had students down there and the main thing was we had students from TY teaching the activities. First-, second- and third-year students were out in nature doing activities like pallet-breaking and making them into raised beds. We had twine-making from, I think, flax plants. There were so many different things we were doing and we could see climate and nature action going up in our school. People were taking that out of the school into their home lives. That should be encouraged. As one of the TY tutors out teaching, we saw action going up and attitudes changing. If members want to talk about education, that is a great way to get students learning about this.

Conor

I will follow up on Deputy O’Sullivan’s question. Firstly, Malcolm Noonan was very sound. He was great and brought some of our suggestions to COP 15, I think it was.

I completely agree with what the Chair said. We are really enthusiastic about biodiversity but sometimes when we get older we get less focused on it because we have bigger problems like financial stuff, kids and houses. It would be great to have national parks around places. Not everyone lives near a national park because loads of towns do not have one. It would be great because you could bring your family there. They could be instead of zoos. I do not like zoos because it is not a great environment for animals and obviously you cannot have a national park with a tiger in it, but you could have some of the native species and maybe some invasive species if they are not too dangerous. It would be great because you could educate your family and keep the interest up.

Eleanor

I will address Senator Higgins's question about global livelihoods and how this affects the whole world. I draw attention to our key message No. 6, which is that we must consume resources in a sustainable and moderate way that diminishes neither the environment and biodiversity nor our rights, well-being and livelihoods. It is important because these livelihoods are not just Irish livelihoods but livelihoods all across the globe. There is no point in us reducing our meat production if we just import it from other places. There is no point reducing our mining if it means people across the world are left unemployed. We have to do it in a way that still supports people because people and nature are forever entwined.

If we stop supporting people in our fight for biodiversity and nature, we will lose their support. We have to balance the way we handle reducing our emissions and the harmful things we produce so that it still protects people's jobs and livelihoods.

David

In response to Senator Higgins's question on mining, the batteries electric vehicles use require much mining for lithium. Lithium is expensive to mine and is only in certain areas of the world. Those areas can also be where some of the world's most endangered species are. If we were to use lithium batteries for electric vehicles, there would have to be a way to ensure animals living around the mines have somewhere else to live. Sometimes where the mines are could be one of the last places these animals are going to be. Mining is essential because certain materials can only be got through mining. There has to be a way for animals which live near where mines are or will be to have somewhere else to live. If they lose part of their habitat, as long as they have a large or substantial amount of habitat left, they will not go extinct. It is a problem with the mines and we could work harder to make mines more friendly and not use certain materials to clean out minerals. People used to use cyanide or something to clean out gold. That will poison people as well as animals if it gets into water systems or anywhere. Mining is one of the key things because many countries' main economy is mining. They need to work harder as well to make sure mining is sustainable and that people are recycling materials that have been mined so we do not have to mine more because somebody threw it into the wrong bin, buried it or left it somewhere.

I will finish with a question. We learned in geography about the 100 sq. km zone in the south east for fish and animal conservation. How is that policed to make sure no one is fishing there more than they should be?

Elsie

On the question about what we learned, when we were in Wicklow we all went on a big walk in the forest. It was many people's favourite part of the whole assembly. We have been asked that question before. I know it was my favourite anyway. We did a hunt looking for items on a list. We learned plenty about some of the plants and animals living in the forest and had a really good time.

Oisín

I will address Senator Boylan's question on what we need to do to get people interested in and passionate about biodiversity. It comes down to education. If we educate people on biodiversity, they will become more passionate naturally. They will automatically become more curious about it. Also, we could enact call to action No. 2, which states, "Provide biodiversity education outside of schools (i.e. community learning, on TV, social media, cartoons, comedy and podcasts) for people of all ages."

If it is just learned in schools, children will probably just forget about it. After tests and assignments, people will forget about the topic, but if it is on TV and they are seeing it everywhere, they will naturally just remember it. There are multiple educational shows and podcasts, such as Ecolution on RTÉJr, which is a podcast about biodiversity, climate change and so on. That is only one thing. We need to see more of that in the entertainment industry.

I thank everyone for all those answers. As is often the case, Deputy O'Sullivan wants to get in with another question.

This is not a question; it is more about what we should do out of this session. We are currently having sessions on the citizens' assembly and biodiversity. We will put a report together on the recommendations for that, which will form an Oireachtas report. The previous session was with Inland Fisheries Ireland. One of the things Dr. Ó Cinnéide said that alarmed me was that the national biodiversity action plan, which I spoke about, is already at draft stage and we expect the final report by January. I will say to my fellow committee members that it will be an unbelievably missed opportunity if we do not include the previous sessions we had around biodiversity loss and today's session with the youth citizens' assembly. If that does not form part of the national biodiversity action plan, it will be a real missed opportunity. Our findings from these sessions should be included in the national biodiversity action plan, along with targets. I understand that Dr. Ó Cinnéide said there would not be any binding targets. If it is to be a truly different biodiversity action plan, there need to be targets. I wanted to make that general point.

To answer David's question, he might be talking about one of the marine protected areas. There are very few in Ireland. However, one of the tasks Ireland has, and it is an international obligation, is that we have to meet many more marine protected area targets. As well as the biodiversity action plan, it is hoped there will also soon be legislation around marine protected areas and a further looking to designate different places in Ireland as such areas. One thing we need to make sure of is that when we designate areas as protected, we also put a lot of resources into enforcing that and minding the different kinds of species that are there. I really like the idea of us having many more parks and protected areas throughout the country, including those that people in towns and cities can access. I like that suggestion from Conor. We are looking at our obligation being something like 30%. Our guests should definitely identify areas for nature in their local areas, even if these are currently a Coillte wood or something else. It is partly about us starting to identify every area we can and turning them into a national park or biodiverse safe area.

It is not unusual for the committee to go way over time because we are dealing with very serious issues and have very committed members. It is also because we have guests today who are so passionate and serious about trying to find solutions to biodiversity loss. They are to be immensely commended on the work they do and have done, as are their colleagues. There was some disappointment that some of them were not able to come in today. We have a very limited number of seats in the room and, unfortunately, not everybody could come. We extend our real and heartfelt thanks to all, both those present and those who are not, for their efforts and engagement today. I hope they will leave with a sense of how serious we are. Every member present also spoke very passionately about these issues. The challenge we have is to persuade people who are not in this room, including our colleagues in political parties across both Houses, that they need to take these issues seriously as well. It is only when everybody is on board with this information, which everybody in this room has, we will start to see the changes in policies that will lead to successful outcomes in respect of nature restoration and a reversal of biodiversity loss.

We are way behind time. I again thank Niamh, Elsie, Eleanor, Conor, Oisín and David for engaging with the committee.

We really appreciate it. Some of them have travelled from quite far away. I also thank parents and friends who have come and are sitting in the Visitors Gallery. They are obviously very welcome. We appreciate their efforts in making this piece of work happen as well. I remind everybody we have refreshments for our guests and committee members. I suspect that our guests will have to eat very fast because a tour of Leinster House has been organised.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.55 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 28 November 2023.
Top
Share