Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 14 Jun 2022

Biodiversity: Engagement with Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage

Apologies have been received from Deputy Cronin. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the position Ireland will take at the UN Biodiversity Conference, COP15, which will be held on 1 October 2022 in Kunming, China. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Dr. Deirdre Lynn, who is a scientific officer at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. She is very welcome to the meeting.

Before we will begin, I will read the note on privilege. Witnesses are reminded 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 the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in regard to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction. As Dr. Lynn is attending remotely from outside the Leinster House campus, there are limitations to parliamentary privilege and, as such, she may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as does a witness who is physically present in the committee room.

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 they may participate in this meeting only if they are physically located on the Leinster House complex. In this regard, I ask members joining us online to confirm, prior to making their contribution, that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

I invite Dr. Lynn to make her opening statement.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the invitation to attend.

I am a scientific officer with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage.  The service is the statutory authority for nature conservation in Ireland, with a particular focus on the implementation of national, EU and international legislation, plans and policies, in particular the Wildlife Acts, the EU habitats and birds directives and the national biodiversity action plan.

Biodiversity represents the variety of life on earth. It provides us with important ecosystem services such as food, pollination, soil fertility, water and climate regulation. Globally, these services have been valued at approximately €1.3 trillion annually. However, national, regional and global assessments have all demonstrated ongoing declines in biodiversity. Globally, we are degrading our natural assets by up to €19 trillion annually. The Dáil has recognised the biodiversity crisis by declaring a biodiversity emergency in 2019.

  How has the world responded to this crisis? At a global level, we have the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which is the sister convention to the climate change convention and both conventions were adopted in Rio in 1992. All the countries in the world are parties to this convention, apart from the United States and the Vatican. Decisions are made by the Conference of the Parties, or COP. The three objectives of the convention are the conservation of biodiversity; the sustainable use of its components, which recognises that we are part of the living fabric and need to use it to exist; and that any benefits arising will be shared equitably.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service acts as the focal point for this convention. I am the focal point for the scientific subsidiary body to the convention. The convention is underpinned by a strategic plan and 20 global biodiversity targets, which were due to run out in 2020. A new global biodiversity framework is being negotiated. It was due to be adopted at COP15 in China in 2020 but due to the ongoing Covid situation, the convening of COP15 has been delayed and is likely to take place in quarter 4 of this year, with the venue still to be confirmed. The European Union is also a party to the convention. For this reason, all of the negotiations at COP are co-ordinated at an EU level to present a strong EU and member state position. The Czech Republic will facilitate EU negotiations at COP15 as it will hold the EU Presidency in the second half of 2022.

Several drafting groups have been set up to work on EU positions, which are agreed by member states at the EU Council working party on international environmental issues. Council conclusions currently being prepared detail the high-level EU position on the preparations for COP15. We will circulate Council conclusions to our colleagues across government for comment.

Under the draft global biodiversity framework, there are currently four goals and 21 targets being negotiated.  These targets include protected area targets; restoration targets; targets for biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning; targets to reduce pollution and invasive alien species; targets to minimise the impact of climate change on biodiversity; targets for sustainable use and the elimination of incentives harmful to biodiversity; targets for business to move towards sustainable extraction and production practices; and, interestingly, a target to encourage and enable people to make responsible choices. If we tackle overconsumption, the knock-on consequences will be significant.

In June, there will be another round of global negotiations in Nairobi to ensure the global biodiversity framework is sufficiently advanced for adoption at COP15 later this year.  The Department of Foreign Affairs has provided €100,000 to support the running costs of this very important meeting in June.

The convention is underpinned by several programmes of work that cover agriculture; inland water; marine and coastal; and forest biodiversity. There are also many cross-cutting areas of work, including climate change, sustainable use, invasive alien species and protected areas.

EU policy and legislation have both informed and been informed by the global agenda. The stage has already been set for the EU ambition for the global biodiversity framework with the publication of the EU biodiversity strategy in 2020. The strategy for 2030 is part of the European Green Deal and is very ambitious. First, the ambition is to have at least 30% of EU land and 30% of EU sea in a protected area network.  The EU is due to publish legislation for legally binding restoration targets under the nature restoration law, which will include actions that will need to be implemented across many sectors, particularly agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The stark reality is that we need to restore thousands of square kilometres of terrestrial land.  There is also an ambition in the EU biodiversity strategy to halt and reverse the decline of pollinators, reduce the use and harmfulness of pesticides and restore freshwater ecosystems, including 25,000 km of free-flowing rivers across the EU.

A whole-of-government approach will be required in relation to the nature restoration law. The nature restoration law proposal and the national restoration plan have significant implications for a range of business units in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and other Departments, most notably the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Environment, Climate and Communications. There may need to be consultation and-or co-ordination with other member states on specific sectoral aspects of this proposal. These will need to be co-ordinated across government and will feed back into the overall national policy positioning.

All of these new and emerging policy areas need to be folded into the next and fourth national biodiversity action plan, which is being drafted. We have had many rounds of stakeholder engagement, including our recent national biodiversity conference attended by over 600 delegates.  We hope to have the plan published in early 2023 to ensure that we consider the recommendations that arise from the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss.

Last week, at Ireland's second biodiversity conference, the Taoiseach said that biodiversity loss "will only be successfully tackled as an all-of-Government and all-of-society project, which will require the vigilance of planners, local authorities, agricultural advisers and all manifestations of state who have a hand in regulating interventions in our land, rivers, lakes, seas and air." The National Parks and Wildlife Service, with the support of the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Malcolm Noonan, is working hard with colleagues across government and society to act now for nature.

I thank Dr. Lynn for her opening statement. A maximum of two hours and 40 minutes remain in this session. I propose that members take two minutes in which to ask questions thus ensuring everybody gets a chance to contribute. We may have an opportunity to have a second and third round should members have questions. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank Dr. Lynn for her opening statement, much of which focused on future plans and developments. I will ask about the current state of affairs. We keep hearing one word, that is, "implementation", and we have heard at various stages about the resourcing of the NPWS. Is the NPWS adequately resourced given the impending extension of its mandate and the types of new and complex planning applications that will be submitted? Does Dr. Lynn envisage that its role will change in the time ahead?

On 2 June, this committee heard from the European Commissioner for Energy. There is a clear stated policy to fast-track planning for renewables projects and perhaps there is a rationale for doing so. Is Dr. Lynn concerned about that policy's potential implications for biodiversity? What needs to be done to ensure we get the best results possible?

I ask Dr. Lynn to reflect on the current state of our inland waterways and rivers.

I know we will have targets in future. However, Ireland has been going completely in the wrong direction as I understand it. I ask Dr. Lynn to give her thoughts on how we might address that.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

I very much welcome recent strategic plan for the renewal of the NPWS. I have been working in the service for almost 20 years. It has been a long time coming. There will be an injection of 60 staff. Many of them will backfill positions we lost since about 2008. When considering biodiversity, it is important to look at responsibilities across Government and see where we can increase resources and capacity across Government to tackle this very wide-reaching agenda. The biodiversity agenda touches almost every Department. We need good education in schools and universities. We need to address the crossover between biodiversity and health. Obviously, biodiversity greatly supports the climate agenda. Biodiversity meets adaptation measures. It is a front-line defence against climate change with the ability for natural systems to sequester carbon and regulate water supply at times of heavy rainfall. I reiterate that we need to look at responsibilities across Government. We also need to look at the internal structures in the NPWS to ensure that we are delivering on our legal responsibilities, particularly regarding European legislation. That exercise still needs to take place. We need to look across our structures and see where we need to inject additional resources.

I understand that we need to embrace renewable energy as part of achieving our climate goals. However, we still need to adhere to legislation that is in place. Those principles still apply. I ask the Deputy to remind me of his final question.

It was about the waterways. I am particularly interested in the Boyne Estuary SPA and the Boyne and Blackwater SAC. They are beside me and there are controversial plans. I ask about the quality of our waterways, the current trends and what might be done to address them.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

We submitted a report under the habitats directive in 2019. The biggest pressure on biodiversity related to pollution arising from agricultural practices. We also see this in EPA reports on water quality. Hopefully, the next round of river basin management planning will address many of these issues and will be able to scale up its programme of measures for our fresh waters. In the context of biodiversity in some areas, we need even higher water quality than is required by the broader framework directive. In some areas we will need to focus our efforts to ensure that we retain some of our really precious habitats, particularly some of our marl lakes and also some of our species that require very clean water, especially freshwater pearl mussel. We certainly have considerable work ahead of us to ensure we continue to improve the condition of our freshwater systems.

I thank Dr. Lynn for her opening statement. I return to a very worthy point raised by Deputy O'Rourke about river basin management. Dr. Lynn has responsibility for a section within the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Resourcing of our local authorities in the context of river basin management is major concern. This goes beyond the point Deputy O'Rourke made regarding the general capacity of our local authorities, including mine, Fingal County Council. In Swords, the Ward river valley, which feeds directly into the Broadmeadow Estuary SAC, is of serious concern to me. The State seems to be heavily reliant on volunteerism. While that might be great and some wonderful people do some wonderful work, I have concerns about the Department's and local authorities' ability to manage our river basin areas appropriately. It also has a significant knock-on effect on water quality. The ability of flora and fauna to thrive in such areas is stymied by waste litter and other issues. I thank Deputy O'Rourke for raising that matter.

My other points about the Department and the NPWS relate to comments Dr. Lynn made about targets. I refer to building regulations and the clearance of natural habitats, including hedgerows, mature and even semi-mature trees for the purposes of development. In many other countries, I am thinking specifically of Denmark, local authorities work with developers in order to retain such flora and fauna as part of developments and tend to integrate them into any development taking place. My experience in Swords and Dublin 15, which is the fastest-growing community in Europe, would be that they simply clear fields and build away. I also have slight concerns that our green spaces are grass only with perhaps a few trees here and there. The State needs to step up and put in flower beds, bushes and perennial flowers to enhance the biodiversity of a local community.

My other two questions are related to building regulation. Regarding sustainable development of our housing stock, we have an over-reliance on concrete. There are regulation issues relating to the use of timber, structural or otherwise. I would like to hear Dr. Lynn's comments on that.

My final question is on the eradication of fossil fuel heating sources in A-rated and B-rated homes. I recently visited a new housing estate in my constituency and was delighted to see that the houses were A2-rated, including things I would like to see becoming normalised such as electric vehicle charging ports and communal spaces. However, I was very concerned that they had gas boilers. This is something Senator Higgins has referred to on many occasions in the committee in the last couple of years. We are building in something with a lifespan of 20 or 30 years beyond our 2030 and 2050 targets. I am concerned that we are unnecessarily reliant on fossil fuels for high-energy-rated properties. We are building in the future use of fossil fuels for the purposes of home heating.

Deputy Farrell-----

I know the UK is set to ban the installation after 2030. We have our own strategy. I would like us to bring that back to, for example, 2025.

I must interrupt Deputy Farrell. Dr. Lynn is from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. It is unfair to put a question relating to boilers to her, but she may feel free to comment if she wishes. I do not want to veer from the agenda, which is biodiversity and the conference in October.

The Deputy asked a number of questions that are relevant so I will turn to Dr. Lynn.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

I will do my best. I am not familiar with many of the building regulations. We are building up capacity within the local authorities with regard to biodiversity officers. We hope to roll out biodiversity officers across all local authorities in the coming years. I think there are only five biodiversity officers at the moment. Hans Visser is the biodiversity officer in Fingal County Council, which recently published a biodiversity plan. Mr. Visser noted that the council only has funding for a portion of the actions it needs to take so we need to look at our resourcing to make sure biodiversity action is undertaken at the local level. We provide some funding to biodiversity and heritage officers but we need to look to all areas to pull in that funding to make sure we take on board local action.

The Deputy mentioned green spaces. Many local authorities are embracing the all-island pollinator plan. My preference would be to appreciate that we have amenity spaces. Obviously, we have spaces where the youth are playing football or Gaelic games but there should also be areas where there is space for nature. They do not need to have massive seed mixes from God knows where. They can just be left. We do not need to have everything so neat and tidy. That is what I would really like to see. I would like to see our communities functioning for different purposes. It is not that I want everything necessarily to be complete wilderness but there should be those little corners and spaces within our urban environments where nature is allowed to thrive.

Local authorities have built up resources relating to climate action. There are climate action regional offices. It would be great to see more of a focus on biodiversity even within the climate agenda. All local authority staff have had mandatory training relating to climate change. I think they all had about an hour and half of such training. I believe there may be moves to try to develop a similar programme for biodiversity and water. Making sure staff in local authorities really understand the issues and solutions they produce for biodiversity at local level would be really excellent. I look forward to seeing this rolled out in the coming years.

I recently purchased a home with a BER of A3, which involves air to heat. We are now seeing financial institutions and companies starting to green their portfolios. I managed to get a really good interest rate based on my BER. It is encouraging that financial institutions are also trying to green their portfolios. There is an EU taxonomy regulation and there will be a dedicated act for biodiversity that should be signed off within the coming year. A lot of these financial institutions would have to make disclosures relating to directions for biodiversity so that is very encouraging. A lot is happening at EU level.

Is there a political aspect to the work of the various Departments in terms of the comments for COP 15 that are being prepared, other than presumably the Department of Foreign Affairs?

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

Is there a political aspect?

Would any line committee such as those dealing with climate action, foreign affairs, etc., have an opportunity to assess the proposed comments that will be prepared for COP15?

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

We are working on the Council conclusions, which is the high-level overview of the preparations for COP15. They are sent around to colleagues in other Departments. This is where they have gone to at the moment. There are several EU drafting groups. We do not have the capacity to be involved in many of these EU drafting groups. Some EU countries have huge resources with lots of staff they can put in place to develop the EU positions. The EU Presidency steps in and works hard to bring on the EU positioning. It is quite difficult for a small country to engage at that level.

It is a fascinating subject. I do not know whether other people struggle the way I do with the enormity of the challenge facing us. In terms of mobilising people, if people feel a bit overwhelmed - it involves climate, pollution, species, extraction, farm methods and consumer choices, etc. - it all becomes a bit overwhelming for them. Are there ways in which we can make it more concrete for Irish people as to what the ambition is? If it is broken into so many silos, it is hard to mobilise people. There is goodwill out there and you see people rewilding bits of their gardens. They do not know to what extent that contributes. Is it vitally important compared to being more sensitive in respect of what they buy in the supermarket versus buying an electric vehicle? Does Dr. Lynn think that the advent of circular economy legislation, the attempt to look at sectors as a whole, redesigning the way we deliver various services and scrutinising the materials, methodologies and consumer choices constitute a way of bringing this into one programme in which consumers and the food sector can participate? I am a bit overwhelmed by all the silos and the different inspectors and many ordinary people, particularly businesspeople, will feel that way.

How do we plan to mobilise change? Dr. Lynn seems to say that we are going to sign up to a lot of ambitions but she does not seem to know what the policy tools that will be used to implement them will be. I know this is a biodiversity emergency and we have to set targets but to some degree, that is reversing the usual approach of policy where you have a fair idea of what your policy instruments can deliver, and then you set a stretch target relating to whatever instruments you are going to put into the field. Perhaps I am wrong but we seem to be doing it in reverse. We are signing up to the targets and then wondering whether there will be policy tools to get us there. It comes down to whether we are evolving the toolbox of funding streams, incentives, levies - whatever it is. This is what is missing in this.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

They are very interesting questions. Regarding being overwhelmed, I am often overwhelmed by the sheer number of things we should be working on to address the climate and biodiversity crisis. In terms of trying to break it down for people, it is very important that we engage local communities. There is an appetite out there among local communities. They are willing to get involved. Once they are talking about it at local level, they stop feeling powerless. We are working with the Community Foundation for Ireland. We have co-funded some of its work under its environment and nature fund. This is to link up communities with ecologists to help communities to develop their own local community plans for biodiversity. About 117 of these community plans are being drafted. The next stage is for us to put some funding into implementing some of the measures associated with these plans.

On some of the other elements to do with the circular economy, the next generation is quite versed in this. I have a six-year-old daughter and she is already coming to me and commenting on recycling and turning off the taps. It is definitely sinking in for that generation.

With regard to how we plan to mobilise change and whether we are signing up to targets without having the means of implementation, the EU biodiversity strategy states we should use existing instruments to achieve the targets. This is where we really need to look at how we spend our money. A few years ago, I commissioned UCD to undertake research on biodiversity expenditure across government. The results show that approximately 10% of funding for biodiversity comes through the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Approximately 78% goes through the Department for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. This is where we need to focus. We need to look at how the money is spent and whether it is being spent effectively. There is a move towards more results-based approaches. We are using a lot of EU funding through the LIFE programmes to test and pilot work which is farmer led. We state what we want the habitat to look like and that when it does we will provide the payments. It is results based. We are looking to scale up a lot of this work.

The amount needed for restoration is significant. We need to look at private investment to support the restoration agenda. We are exploring this. We have set up the peatland finance Ireland initiative which will look at how we will be able to mobilise private finance for peatland restoration in particular. Many private companies are very interested in getting involved in the restoration agenda. We need to build the mechanisms. We need to make sure we have a code so that everything is transparent and what we do is scientifically underpinned. It is very important for us to work with local landowners.

Does that presuppose there will be a funding stream to pay them for the carbon sequestration? These are key issues. It needs to be made attractive for people to do these things. People need to be informed of the downside and, in cases, non-compliant activity needs to be levied. How far down the road are we to having a set of these instruments?

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

We are only at the early stages. In the National Parks and Wildlife Service in particular many of us have had private industry come to us from different angles expressing an interest in this and asking how to do it. That is why we have started the initiative. The important point is that many of us are ecologists and conservationists; we are not financial people. We need to be able to work not only with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine but also the Department of Finance to have them support us.

To go back to my first question, is this not the merit of going for the circular economy? It forces it into the mainstream. It is not the ecologists speaking to people. It is when it is forced into the financial context that every sector is under an obligation to come to terms with it.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

Yes, but we often find that we are the first people who try to see the idea and then we hope we get others to come on board and help us. This is what we are trying to do at present.

I have just joined the meeting and I hope I will not ask questions Dr. Lynn has already answered. My first question is on the European Green Deal and the ambitious target of protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030. We have signed up to this on a global and European level but my understanding is that we have not signed up to it at national level. Does that need to happen? Will it be included in the upcoming biodiversity action plan? Is it being looked at? Unless the targets are set, it will be very difficult to achieve.

I would like to know more about the 10% that is highly protected. There is 30% protected and 10% highly protected. The next aspect I want to discuss comes back to targets. The committee has been through setting targets for climate emissions on a legislative basis. Would it be a good idea to have something similar for biodiversity? If it is not in legislation, it is more difficult to get it through, particularly for future Governments. We do not know what will happen down the road.

The National Oil Reserves Agency, NORA, fund was expanded recently to include biodiversity measures. There is a considerable amount of money in the fund and it tends to be used for climate emission measures. Is the Department looking to utilise some of this funding?

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

With regard to the targets set for the protected areas, at global level these targets are still being negotiated. They are not set at 30% at present. That is the target included in earlier drafts but it is still being negotiated.

There is a covenant or grouping we signed up to that was more global.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

Was it the high ambition coalition?

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

That was to push the global agenda to be very ambitious. The targets set in the EU biodiversity strategy are the targets set for EU levels. It is 30% of EU land and 30% of EU sea. This does not necessarily translate to the national level. We will need to discuss internally in the National Parks and Wildlife Service how we tackle it. A lot of work is being done on marine protected areas. I hope we will expand the coverage of our marine protected areas considerably. We will also need to have a lot of discussions about terrestrial land. The Deputy may be familiar with some of the EU protected areas. There are special areas of conservation and special protection areas for birds. It does not need to be that level of protection. We can have other systems. We can have contract agreements for example. We could enter into contract agreements with Bord na Móna and other public landowners. There are other effective conservation measures. There are other areas where we could say we are doing X, Y and Z and, therefore, technically we can include it in our figures. We have to work out a lot of this. We have to start making the pledges that will be examined in 2023.

With regard to the 10% that is supposedly strictly protected, these are carbon-rich ecosystems. This means no activity should take place in these areas unless specifically for the conservation of the habitats on the site. We will look at some of our carbon-rich habitats and bog areas and possibly salt marshes. There are some other areas that would be quite carbon rich that we should consider for strict protection.

With regard to targets in legislation, we have our national biodiversity plan. We are trying to get some kind of legislative statutory footing for the biodiversity action plan.

This would at least give it more teeth. We are also seeking to improve the governance of the biodiversity action plan. It is currently overseen by an interdepartmental group but I hope that we may be able to report to a higher level in the next round so that there will be a greater onus on people when we look for progress on actions in the plan because not all of these actions are undertaken by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Many of them are undertaken by our colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, its forest service, the Environmental Protection Agency and many other Departments. It is very important that there be a little bit more political scrutiny. We also have a watchdog, the National Biodiversity Forum, which is a multi-stakeholder group that oversees the implementation of the plan and makes recommendations to the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan. We have increased funding for that forum to make sure that it functions properly, has a functioning secretariat and can really progress and give good recommendations.

On the NORA fund, correct me if I am wrong but the Bord na Móna rehabilitation scheme was originally funded from the climate action fund. It may possibly have been passed over to the NORA fund but the €108 million for the rehabilitation of post-production Bord na Móna peatlands is now being funded by the EU resilience fund. We should all be looking at all of the available funds to ratchet up our restoration agenda.

The discussion has been really interesting. I will pick up on a couple of the wider framing issues. The legislative issue Dr. Lynn mentioned with regard to putting the biodiversity plan on a solid statutory basis is really important. Things like the pollinator plan also need more teeth. Dr. Lynn might comment on things like that. We could then move from these things being aspirational to being very solidly reflected in design.

I was struck by what Dr. Lynn said about 10% of the funding for biodiversity coming through the National Parks and Wildlife Service while 78% comes through the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Do we need a little bit more to go through the National Parks and Wildlife Service? The €108 million for the rehabilitation scheme seems very small when we consider the €600 million given out in jet kerosene tax reliefs in Ireland. I am talking about scaling up. It comes back to the idea of the mechanisms. Dr. Lynn has mentioned that there are investors and so on and that a financial mechanism in respect of this work is being created but I am concerned that, in waiting to create this financial mechanism, we may not be doing what we can in the immediate and short term, when those actions are needed. I am talking about public leadership on this issue with, perhaps, space for investors and about the need for scaling up. Will Dr. Lynn comment on the issue of not just rehabilitation, but also rewetting and full restoration of peatlands so that there is no further degradation? This strikes me as something that can either do good or do harm.

I have a concern about over-reliance on the agriculture frame, even though it is important. I refer to the carbon farming frame. We might end up in a situation where we are measuring the protection of areas but solely in terms of carbon units. Ecological care is slightly harder to measure but it is really important. I am talking about the biodiversity piece. Will Dr. Lynn comment on the importance of ecological care, biodiversity work and not just considering units of trees that may store carbon in 15 years' time but forests and areas of rich biodiversity and the role that they play? Will she comment on the importance of making sure that these issues are not sublimated? I am really interested because these are really important frames in terms of what we can do now and what could be done now, were €300 million or €400 million more put into peatlands, for example.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service and its resources must be strengthened to make sure it has independence and the required resources with regard to staff and so on. That would be really useful. There has been some engagement and a review on that issue. Where is that going?

That complements another issue that has come up a lot in this committee's meetings, the issue of things like environmental impact assessments. There is an under-resourcing with regard to ecologists, people who can deliver that work. That is one of the reasons for the bottleneck. It is not that we should be doing fewer environmental impact assessments. We have even had wind energy companies tell us that they just want the area to be better resourced so that they can be carried out more efficiently.

I have two last points. One relates to the part sound pollution, sonar and seismic activity in marine protected areas, MPAs, play in terms of biodiversity protection. The other point is really important for right now, in June. As Dr. Lynn has said, there are new global negotiations in Nairobi. There seems to be a big international debate. One piece relates to the protection of 30% of land and sea areas. I am concerned that a conflict is being allowed to develop with regard to these 30% targets being achieved through working with different partners, including commercial partners, as Dr. Lynn mentioned, and the possibility of an effective land grab from indigenous peoples. We know that indigenous people make up 5% of the global population but protect 80% of the world's biodiversity and 25% of the land. We are talking about Nairobi, which is in Kenya, where Masai people live. We are now seeing Masai people in Tanzania being evicted from their ancestral lands to allow those lands to become a conservation park, which will also be a hunting park for those who might bankroll it. How do we resolve those tensions? Can Ireland, which does not have as much tension in that regard, be a constructive voice on the issue within the international negotiations on the role of indigenous persons and protection?

There is quite a lot for Dr. Lynn in that but I am sure she will do her best.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

There is a lot to unpack there. The pollinator plan the Senator mentioned is an amazing plan. It provides excellent guidelines for different sectoral interests. There has been a keen uptake. There has also been support from some in private industry, such as SuperValu. The pollinator plan was mainly drafted by Professor Jane Stout in Trinity College and the National Biodiversity Data Centre so it is not specifically a Government plan. We sit on the steering committee and support it where we can. It is possibly something we need to think about in the future. I do not want to detract from the plan because it is doing really well. To give credit where credit is due, it has done an excellent job.

On the bottlenecks, the Senator's observations were very interesting, particularly with regard to ecologists and to peatlands. Restoring peatlands is quite complicated. You have to make sure you have a really good rehabilitation and restoration plan. That will involve hydrologists, ecohydrologists and engineers at the very start. We do not have enough ecohydrologists who understand the interplay between elements of the water story, such as groundwater and the movement of water, and the ecology itself well enough to ensure that we are rehabilitating in the proper way. If you gave us hundreds of millions tomorrow to ensure we had really good restoration plans, it could still be quite tricky to scale up. That relates to raised bogs. The situation is even more complex for blanket bogs with regard to their topography and very degraded systems that have been overgrazed for a long time.

There are complicated landowner systems as well. It is complex to tease out and work through and that is what we are trying to do through the EU LIFE programme, Wild Atlantic Nature. There is so much community involvement there, working with partners like Coillte and private investors as well. They are trialling, testing and seeing what works on the ground and how to have that community buy-in, which is very important. We probably have the machinery because there has been so much machinery taking the peat out of the ground that there is probably machinery and contract workers that could help with the restoration. We are at a scientific support bottleneck. Maybe we need to look elsewhere, to other EU countries, to try to bring in the skills we need to support this restoration agenda, particularly for bogs.

On supporting biodiversity and making sure it is also considered to be a common benefit, we are trying to have a biodiversity score and to work on that. I refer to water also because the three are all interlinked. We are working with Intel on a pilot restoration project in the Wicklow uplands. Intel is interested in water and in seeing how much water will be restored if a bog is restored. It is about linking all of those together and making sure that when we report back we can say what sort of emissions have been reduced, how biodiversity has improved and, where relevant, how much water has been stored. Private investors are interested in all of those, for different reasons. They have to make various disclosures under different processes and it is important for them to show what they are doing for biodiversity. We are ensuring that we are trying to develop those scores at the same time.

The questions of sonar and the MPAs are probably outside of my area of expertise. The Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD, is good at producing a lot of guidance and documents and there is a guidance document on underwater noise. A lot of these documents will be taken through in the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, which is known as the OSPAR Convention, and through EU channels as well. I am sure our colleagues in our marine section are dealing with a lot of that.

The matter of indigenous peoples is an interesting one. From the beginning the CBD has involved the views of the indigenous people in local communities. There is a whole article in the convention dedicated to that and to making sure they are involved in all aspects of decision-making. It will be interesting to see what will be brought up in Nairobi on what has happened in Kenya recently and on how we deal with a lot of those conflicts. I know they are very different situations but even in Ireland landowners need to be respected and we need to be able to talk to them and to explain to them the opportunities that are potentially there for them. Everything has changed, particularly in the potential for carbon farming and the opportunities available to landowners. They are starting to think in a different way and it will be an interesting next ten years in how all of this evolves.

I thank Dr. Lynn and Senator Higgins. Senator Higgins is on mute and I will keep her on mute and go to Deputy Devlin, who is next. Senator Higgins will have a chance to come back in.

I thank Dr. Lynn for her presentation and for outlining some of those elements. The key thing for me is the 60 new staff she mentioned and the additional funding of €55 million, which will have enormous benefits for the NPWS. I know there will be an internal review to improve the service that is there. I want to compliment Dr. Lynn and her colleagues within the NPWS for the work they do on a daily basis. Its remit is quite broad, as Dr. Lynn outlined in her opening statement, but I want to touch on a few matters.

One of the issues that have been mentioned was the MPAs and the special protection areas, SPAs. That was interesting to me because I represent Dún Laoghaire, a coastal constituency, and one where we are familiar with the SPAs. There has to be a balance between the SPAs and other uses of land adjacent to the SPAs. We need to find that balance in order to try to make progress on various schemes.

I was glad to hear Dr. Lynn's emphasis on biodiversity. The pollination corridors are a key function for some of the Tidy Towns groups. I know that some officials in the local authorities, such as Anne Murray, the biodiversity officer in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, are keen on promoting them but we can never get enough of them. I hear what Dr. Lynn is saying about open spaces and Deputy Alan Farrell referred to that as well. They cannot all be manicured to within an inch of their lives either. We have to let nature grow and we have to protect bees and other wildlife, such as birds, which Dr. Lynn referenced. How does Dr. Lynn envisage that we can expand pollinating corridors and other such initiatives to ensure that is a crucial element in the next national biodiversity action plan? We need to see progress being made, not just in rural areas but in urban areas as well. In Dublin in particular we need to see greater progress on that. I also agree with Dr. Lynn that there is great buy-in from the public on this. They want to be informed so they can co-operate on and facilitate this, be that in their back garden, their estate or their community.

I mentioned biodiversity and Dr. Lynn will probably be familiar with Killiney Hill. I have spoken here several times about the red squirrel project that was launched in 2015. It was quite innovative at the time but again, local authorities are supported in this way to try to encourage greater biodiversity and protect certain species. Dalkey Island has an Arctic tern colony and I know the NPWS has been greatly involved in that.

Dr. Lynn mentioned water quality and rivers. We have to make a greater effort to the ensure the quality of water in our rivers. They have improved in recent years but things like missed connections, particularly in urban areas, are a big issue. It is amazing what one missed connection can do to the quality of a river in an urban area. Dr. Lynn might speak to that point.

We need to see greater progress on reforestation too. We need to protect the forests we have. Again I am speaking from an urban perspective because we need to ensure we do everything we can under the next plan to safeguard the forests we enjoy, which are used by the public as great amenities. I thank Dr. Lynn for her presentation.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

I will comment on some of the Deputy’s interesting intervention. Pollination corridors are important in an urban setting and equally so across the country. We need this green architecture across agricultural systems as well and it is important that we maintain our hedgerows. We have a heterogenous landscape. We are a farming nation, which I understand, and we need to produce food but we also need to make space for nature and to allow species to be able to move across the landscape.

Under the auspices of the next CAP strategic plan, I hope, therefore, that much more space will be made for nature in agricultural systems and that these types of connections will be made, especially in the face of climate change. Species may have particular areas that they live in because of a specific climate envelope, and if that is shifted, then species may also need to shift. Species must be able to move through and permeate the landscape, so it is important that we have all these collectivities and green architecture in place.

At the local level in urban areas, regarding embracing the pollinator plan, it has been encouraging just to see the increased level of awareness. I also noticed that along all the motorways there are little signs for bees. I drove up and down from Wexford recently, and Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, is leaving the verges of the roads uncut for much of the summer to facilitate pollinators. It is great to see that as well. As I said, we provide funding to the heritage and biodiversity officers for local actions. Many of the actions that are funded relate to pollinator actions.

Turning to the reafforestation, we have one of the lowest rates of native woodland cover in Europe. I think it is running at less than 2% of native woodland, and this aspect must be addressed. Through the land use review process, we should look across Ireland and exploring where we should focus our efforts. I refer in particular to alluvium woodlands. Many alluvial soils in this context would benefit from being wooded. We need to protect our older oak woodlands and tackle invasive species. We must also expand our complement of native woodlands. Equally, regarding the monoculture of Sitka spruce plantations, I appreciate that it is a crop that we need for wood products, but these plantations must be sited in appropriate areas and certainly not on peatlands.

The land use review referred to in the programme for Government is a good opportunity for us to come together and to look across the landscape and examine how we live in this landscape, in particular, how people live and how we should be live in harmony with nature within the landscape. I say that because it is important for us all. No sector should be polluting. We really need to look at the common good in this regard. This is what is important and what should be considered. I am always very interested when I hear politicians talk about progress and growth, because I do not know what that means if it is not for the common good. What is progress? Is progress represented by certain big industries making lots of money? I do not think that is progress. Progress is when the common good is considered and that the fact that we all have the right to live in a healthy environment.

It is great to see the red squirrels on Killiney Hill; I saw one. It is always a joy to see that flash of red running in front of you. I saw one in Wexford last weekend as well and your heart just skips a beat. It is also great to see the pine marten population expanding and controlling the grey squirrel population. When we get things back in balance, sometimes nature starts to fix itself. Therefore, it is great to see the red squirrels-----

Those red squirrels originate in Wexford, so Dr. Lynn is correct about this.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

It is lovely to see when things start improving.

I would also like Dr. Lynn to comment on river water quality.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

Again, in urban settings, this subject would be very much outside my remit.

Okay. It is more an issue for Irish Water. That is fine. I thank Dr. Lynn.

I thank Dr. Lynn for her presentation. I apologise for arriving late to the meeting. I echo what others have said, and welcome the NPWS review having been done and recommended increased funding and a strengthened role for that agency concerning wildlife crime. I would be interested to hear, however, whether Dr. Lynn thinks that the service will have the ability to undertake those types of investigations and have the required authority in this regard when it comes to wildlife crime, particularly if that means investigating another organisation in the State. An example would be what we have seen happen with Emo Court, where the OPW disturbed a bat roost without the necessary derogation licence and then got a retrospective licence from the NPWS. Therefore, given what we have seen recently in that case, I am concerned about whether the NPWS believes that it will be able to take on other arms of the State, if those organisations are in breach of the habitats directive and the Wildlife Acts.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

I do not work on that side of the NPWS, but the review itself and the injection of funding will enable us to look at ourselves introspectively and ensure that we have built up those areas to ensure that we are upholding the law in an appropriate fashion. I could not comment further than that. I apologise.

Okay. Regarding the opening statement and what was said about a-whole-of-government approach, my query again is whether Dr. Lynn believes that the NPWS will be able to go to those other Departments to ensure there is such an approach. One example concerns rodenticide, and its use and impact, particularly on the barn owl project, but also on other raptors. Despite this impact, the CAP encourages the use of bait boxes containing rodenticide, even if the farmer knows there are barn owls living on the land. In this context, will the NPWS be able to bring about a coherent policy that embraces the work of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and what we are trying to achieve with the NPWS?

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

This is an interesting question. I have seen, possibly since about 2019, biodiversity creeping up the agenda in other Departments. They are really starting to listen. We are having many more cross-departmental meetings. There is much more respect for the biodiversity agenda. Interestingly, it may be the climate agenda that has spearheaded the way in respect of this agenda infiltrating awareness and achieving a whole-of-government approach to an issue. We are coming along on the tails of that development and pointing out that we are here too and that we are all part of this climate agenda.

Therefore, when we consider that we have more resources and that other Departments are listening, and when we also identify the capacity needs across other Departments and, hopefully, try to encourage upskilling in those Departments in respect of biodiversity, I think we will all then be part of the same conversation. It will, however, take time. Possibly, we need a little more buy-in from some Departments. The Department of Health, for example, has had a massive agenda of its own to deal with in recent years in the context of Covid-19, but there are also important crossovers between a healthy environment and health issues and, therefore, trying to build up expertise in health and education will also be important for us.

I have raised the issue of rodenticide with the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Malcolm Noonan, but also that of formaldehyde, glyphosate and all these chemicals that are readily available. It is possible to walk down to any high street store and buy them cheaply. I have asked for a public awareness campaign, and I think the Minister of State is receptive to it. Putting aside the fact that the agriculture industry will say that it needs these chemicals, surely they should not be available to ordinary domestic households. I say that because when I speak to many people, they are not aware of the damage these chemicals can do in respect of biodiversity. I mention this in the context of the local authority level as well. Is there a need-----

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

A public awareness campaign would be very beneficial. Everybody should know what they are using in their daily lives and how it affects the environment. It would be very good work to undertake.

We can follow up on that.

I raise something in the context of COP15 in Kunming in October. What is Dr. Lynn's sense of the appetite that is there to review very long-standing national legislation? I am thinking of the Arterial Drainage Act 1945, which I looked at recently, and I found a paper written by a young researcher in the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, named Richard Bruton who explored the matter in depth. I find he is sitting opposite me now, and he might wish to contribute on the point.

The Arterial Drainage Act was placed on the Statute Book primarily to facilitate the draining of land for agriculture. It is fair to say that the impact of the Arterial Drainage Act is that the ability of much of our land to hold on to its water has been compromised. It has led to much downstream flooding, including flash flooding. We know this is an issue with the management of flooding and we must consider it in that way but I am also thinking of biodiversity. There must be serious implications for biodiversity in this country, particularly in wetter land, due to the Arterial Drainage Act. It is 51 years since the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. It does not seem consistent to me that we would have an Act - a pillar of the Statute Book - that requires us to drain so much land annually. We spend much time doing so as well and it seems much of that money could be turned over to biodiversity restoration instead of investing it in draining land. I am interested to hear Dr. Lynn's views of that, if she has any.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

From a biodiversity perspective, I am very much in favour of natural systems where possible, including natural flood plains. Since time began, nature has been holding and releasing water. That is my personal view, although I appreciate there are other reasons for the legislation. We might hear Deputy Bruton's views on the matter.

We must assess much of what we do and, in particular, the costs we put in versus the benefits we get. We must value the ecosystem services that biodiversity gives us in water retention in particular with this instance. We must consider such a cost-benefit analysis. I understand the sensitivities around households or urban areas being flooded. However, and possibly as part of the land use review, we should be looking at all of this, including watershed systems and where water is held. We should start from the head waters in the mountains and ensure our blanket bogs are in good order so they can retain water before it comes into our lowland systems as well.

Under the climate action plan, there are actions relating to the rewetting of agricultural peatlands. We know we must go back to a system of rewetting to ensure we store carbon within our systems as well. We must look at all of this holistically.

I accept Dr. Lynn has said it is probably appropriate under the land use review but is there any discussion or thinking going on in the Department or the NPWS specifically on the Arterial Drainage Act and whether it is really what we need in this day and age?

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

It is very much a matter for the Office of Public Works, which has just recently published an internal biodiversity plan. There may have been actions related to this in that plan but I cannot quote them at this point. It is something for the Office of Public Works in discussion not just with us but across several other Departments, and possibly in the land use review process.

The Chairman asked me to comment. Is that a provocation? Looking at a programme of drainage in a cost-benefit analysis comes down to what we count as costs versus what we count as benefits. The reality is that if in ten years we price carbon at €100 per tonne, a hectare of land devoted to beef farming, for example, where margins are extremely low, would be tiny next to the €400 per hectare carbon impact. The issue is how to measure that and whether it factors into the costs and benefits that a farmer looks at, or, indeed, the policymaker. The difficulty we have is we are not looking at this in a sufficiently holistic way in order to take account of the carbon impacts as well. The logic is that we pay farmers to switch the use of their land and take a different view. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine should be taking a similar view when it assesses different schemes for support. If we just look at the very narrow silos I referred to earlier, we tend to become blind to those wider impacts.

That is why I strongly favour integrating the way we approach challenges like this into the sort of circular thinking that considers how to design the advantage and pay to make it happen. The reality is that in ten years, other sectors of the economy will be expending €1,000 per tonne for carbon abatement, which could be done very profitably by many in the rural communities and provide a huge alternative income source to them. We must be imaginative in developing the instruments for that to happen. Those instruments are not proceeding as quickly as we are signing up to ambitions. We must devote more to getting those financial and economics people into the room with the likes of Dr. Lynn in order to design those policies rather than having them sitting in the Departments of Finance or Agriculture, Food and the Marine, or wherever they are.

I must admit I did not read the ESRI paper from 1982.

I would not burden the Chairman with it. It was a long time ago.

I will do it. It will be my homework for the week. It is on our work programme to look at sequestration, how to incentivise it and rewetting. We might have Deputy Bruton as a special guest for that. Dr. Lynn is welcome to comment further or otherwise I will move on.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

We really need to come together. Many of these issues are much wider than the NPWS. Perhaps I am putting too much hope into the land use review but I really hope it will progress things more holistically.

We will proceed to a second round of questions, if that is okay.

It is really interesting that we are really pushing into a point of overlap. I have a similar perspective to Deputy Bruton on where things are going but a slightly different perspective of how to approach it. The finance actors and others are very much already there and moving. What is really important is that public ideas and policy goals can be placed centre stage in order that they are not lost.

It is something we need to be aware of because while the distinction is not as clear in Ireland, it is important internationally. Indigenous peoples and local communities are not necessarily the same as landowners. If we use the term "landowner" as shorthand for indigenous peoples, it is problematic. There are many industries that need to deliver on carbon impact abatement. We are seeing very large international land grabs by massive investment firms because there is a market that they correctly see coming - and it is coming - for carbon. I do not think they are the people who need motivating. They are there already. I do not know the detail of the Intel project; it sounds really interesting. It is also really important that any carbon sequestration that companies engage in is not done to allow them to expand areas of their business, for example, data centres. I do not know if that is happening. Our national targets in carbon emission reductions need to be achieved. It is imperative that public land in particular, and even semi-private public land and other land, is used as part of the national carbon abatement process. We should also look at the jobs that we can create and support through that in terms of ecological care, rather than simply motivating the market. The market is already motivated. For me, the question is whether our other biodiversity and ecological goals will really be delivered and whether we are doing all that we can with the land that we, as a State, can access. I think that is important. That is where the tension will be. There are huge areas of biodiversity that have been protected by indigenous people. For countries that want to hit their 30% protection target, the easy thing to do is to relabel a whole area of indigenous land - with a commercial partner - as being a biodiversity protection zone that can be commercially marketed. It is a real tension. The good thing is that everybody realises that we need to protect land. How it is done and the approach taken are really important. That is where having a public leadership vision is important. I hope that we scale that up.

I also ask Dr. Lynn to comment on invasive species and the sustainable development goals, SDGs. The SDGs, and particularly those that focus life on land and life on water and goal 11 on sustainable cities and communities, have really interesting targets around biodiversity and habitat protection. Invasive species is an issue. The protection of the native honeybee is a measure that we are currently considering in the Seanad at the moment. It seems to me to fit within those SDGs. I ask Dr. Lynn to comment on addressing invasive species and the other SDG targets, as well as on the capacity that we need to increase in respect of environmental impact assessments, the habitats directive, the birds directive and the water directive. Is there potential to have the same kind of tools that we are using there to begin to incorporate and consider some of the SDG targets on biodiversity alongside that work? Could we upskill in that area in terms of the kind of ecological and environmental impact assessments that we are doing?

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

On invasive species, we are going to be introducing new national legislation to implement the new EU regulation. There will be provisions within that legislation for Inland Fisheries Ireland, which will have responsibility for aquatic invasive species.

In response to the Senator's question on the SDGs, there are two main goals that are biodiversity-related, namely, goal 14 on the environment below water and goal 15 on the main biodiversity elements. There is quite a general crossover with everything that we already do in relation to sustainable use and protecting mountain ecosystems. There are also targets relating to ecosystem accounting, and making sure that it is built into our national accounts. It goes back to looking at the value of nature, how we build that into our national accounts and moving on to how we do our cost-benefit analysis and understand those values. There has been some movement on that. The Central Statistics Office, CSO, will report back to EUROSTAT on some of these elements. It will start building up expertise in this area. It is great to see the CSO coming on board.

On the CBD and the public land element, lots of safeguards are built into the convention. We hope that very strong lines will be taken in terms of the protection of indigenous lands to ensure that the international community is not promoting land grabs. The ecosystem approach contains 12 principles. It brings it right back down to the level of the people who were involved with the land at that point. We are doing work in trying to bring in private investors to help support the restoration agenda. We are going to produce a peatland code, which will be a sort of restoration code. We will seek agreement on the code across a lot of different players and stakeholders to ensure that we do not have that slightly sinister move in certain areas towards a land grab. It has not been happening in Ireland. None of the companies that we are dealing with are showing any interest in that vein. They are more keen to support our work. However, I do not know, in that at the beginning, they might be seeing what is happening and how it works, building up to something. We are being very careful in the early phases. The Intel work is being done within our own national park area, supporting that. I did not really understand the Senator's final question on environmental impact assessments and using the tools available.

I was thinking of the issue of bottlenecks in the system. The issue was previously raised in respect of planning, in the context of An Bord Pleanála only having one ecologist, which was significant. I was referring to the need for more skills in the area. As well as looking at the EU tools, including environmental impact assessments and considering the directives, I was asking whether there is an opportunity for upskilling on the SDGs and the targets and indicators within them to enable us to begin to factor them in and think about them in planning processes or decision-making, for example. My question was around awareness. The SDGs are meant to be getting integrated into everything that we are doing. I thought that perhaps putting them alongside some of the hard EU tools might be useful.

I might just ask my supplementary question now and Dr. Lynn can respond to both questions together. Dr. Lynn is correct. I have been discussing the issue of land grabbing in the international context. Dr. Lynn mentioned cost-benefit analysis. There are other important points to raise in respect of the EU. First, due diligence legislation is coming through. Second, according to the EU rules on taxonomy, biodiversity should not be damaged. It is meant to be one of the safeguards built into the taxonomy. Therefore, we have one legislative tool and one investment tool that require the collation of solid information around biodiversity and the environment. Is that done through the CSO or will the Department have to upskill staff to ensure that the relevant information is being gathered as part of due diligence and decisions around the taxonomy? Lastly, the EU proposal on the nature restoration law is due to be adopted on 22 June. The law may well be considered by this committee and others. I ask Dr. Lynn for her thoughts on the new restoration law and the package that goes with it. What should we be looking out for in order to ensure that the law is as strong as it could be?

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

On the EU taxonomy and the delegated Acts, I foresee that many companies will have to provide the information. Some of the bigger companies, in particular, are building up their sustainability teams and their biodiversity expertise.

We may get into a situation where we find some of the private sector companies have more ecology staff than us. I am not clear where the reporting lines go back in when they report back. I assume that goes in on an EU level, for them to determine whether they have undertaken due diligence and they have proceeded with "do no harm". We have also just launched our own business and biodiversity platform. We have some founding members for that platform. We launched it at the biodiversity conference last year. That is to try to bring businesses on board, to engage them and ensure that they understand the opportunities available to them and their dependencies. There will be webinars on how they look at their supply chains and how they undertake many of those activities. There is quite a big business movement ongoing at present at national level and at EU level, where is a business and biodiversity platform. I think it is called a business movement in the EU biodiversity strategy. The EU is ramping up, as well, in terms of supporting businesses and bringing them along and both sides exchanging their views.

The nature restoration law will be very significant. I believe the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, has already requested that very high-level officials get together to discuss the implications of the EU restoration law when it comes out. There may be different threads to this. There will be targets relating to the numbers of the EU protected habitats and species returning to favourable status or ensuring no further decline and there could be wider ecosystem targets for restoration. We have to draw up our own national restoration plan, as well. We have to have discussions about who leads on these big biodiversity agenda items. Where restoration has to happen, agricultural policies will have to be considered. We will have to figure out how we all work together to develop that restoration plan in the next six months. That is a very important one that members should probably be bringing back to this committee. The members should ask, not only the National Parks and Wildlife Service but also some of our colleagues from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the forest service about how we all intend to work together to achieve those very ambitious restoration targets.

Dr. Lynn made the point earlier on that biodiversity needs to be addressed holistically and it is very much a cross-portfolio issue. The siloing of biodiversity within one Department or another can cause difficulties. Dr. Lynn spoke about the financial issues and considerations. There are biodiversity elements to areas such as planning and flood defences. Are the structures in place to enable cross-departmental discussions to happen? If they are in place, are they working? What improvements could be made?

I will talk about the pollinator issue. Dr. Lynn spoke about the pollinator plan, which is a great initiative. People have really grasped it and they want to do as much as possible. However, issues have been raised with regard to wildflower mixes and whether they are introducing invasive species we would obviously not want to introduce. Is the NPWS doing any examination of or study of those wildflower mixes? Ideally, our wildflowers should be coming from the soil, even if one does not add any seeds to an area. I have done it in my garden where I have stopped cutting and taken away any of the inputs. The number of different species in the garden is incredible. They self-seeded. Does the NPWS intend to look at those wildflower packets to see whether we should encourage people? I know there are some corporations that are putting in major investment in this area. I hear ads on the radio and I become worried about what, potentially, we could be inadvertently encouraging.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

The Deputy's last question is very important. I do not know if she has seen any of the articles. An excellent article was recently written by Dr. Noeleen Smyth who used to work in the National Botanic Gardens and is now an associate professor of horticulture in UCD. I share her views. One's back garden is one's own. One should absolutely be able to plant whatever one likes there. There is no problem with some urban areas and some communities having a nice floral display, perhaps of seed mix. It is the messaging in terms of whether it is said to be pro-biodiversity. In some of those cases, it is not really the best thing for biodiversity. Many of them are not considered to be from native seed sources. The best thing for biodiversity is to reduce mowing and cut late in the season to allow flowers to flower, seed and increase diversity and to provide a food source for pollinators throughout the season; one with which these pollinators have evolved. I love dandelions, which are absolutely beautiful, and regular lawn mixes of daisies, buttercups, dandelions and clover. It is amazing that one sees many people on Twitter now saying they have left an area for a couple of years and showing what is coming up now. The amount of diversity that can come through those small grassy areas within a few years is remarkable and a real joy to see. It depends. I advise caution but one does not want to get totally preachy about it and say "absolutely not" to all seed mixes, in all cases. People have a right to do what they want in their own gardens. As far as I am aware, we have not undertaken any studies on the content of these seed mixes. Dr. Smyth may have started on some of that, but I am not entirely sure.

With regard to the current structures within NPWS and whether we can work effectively across Departments, from my own experience it has been very challenging. My original role had been monitoring and reporting. We were reporting back to the EU. We were commissioning many surveys and coming up with trends of status. One layers on top of that to link in within the climate, restoration, international and EU agendas. It can be very challenging and it is really heartening to see that has been recognised and that we are getting the injection of staff to at least get us back to 2008 levels and then, with further injections in the years to come.

When we start rebuilding, we will, I hope, be a louder and more informed voice. The agenda is very big. When one is trying to get one's head around all of the EU regulations and the financial implications, one has to put the time and effort into research and review as well. It would be great to be able to focus back in on that. I have come from the scientific unit and the idea is that we will be allowed to breathe more and get back into the science and research, in order that we can have a very good understanding and be able to come to fora such as this to give our expert opinion.

It has been great to tune into the conversation with Dr. Lynn. I have enjoyed hearing members talk about letting their gardens grow and hearing Deputy Devlin talk about the origins of the red squirrel.

It is a sign of the times and of how far we have come and how far our thinking has changed on the importance of biodiversity. Obviously, however, we have a long way to go.

If Dr. Lynn does not mind, I will start with a very pressing issue, certainly from a biodiversity point of view. There is an agricultural element to this as well in respect of poultry. From the point of view of wild birds and other birdlife, we see avian flu having a devastating impact at the moment. It is wiping out large populations of seabirds, particularly colonies of birds such as gannets. It is having an impact on tern colonies, guillemots, razorbills and even geese species such as barnacle geese. Particularly in the UK, the numbers are incredibly concerning and the response is a difficult one. It is hard to know what to do. From an Irish perspective, we have had confirmed cases of avian flu in wild birds on Irish shores. Gannets, in particular, are washing up dead with confirmed avian flu. From an NPWS and Department perspective, what is the response? Are we ready to deal with this? Are we putting in place measures to ensure that this does not spread and have a massive impact on our wild bird population?

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

Again, I am not a bird expert. My understanding is that officials from the National Parks and Wildlife Service sit on a committee with officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine who are responsible for animal health and welfare and that they draw up their response plan. I am personally not familiar with that - I apologise. If the Deputy would like us to submit a more detailed response-----

Yes, that would be great, just to see what plans are afoot to deal with that outbreak.

Moving on to the upcoming conference and convention, Dr. Lynn mentioned, and Deputy Whitmore touched on, the question of the 30% targets for land and sea. Does Dr. Lynn feel that it would be a good idea that, instead of that being a European average, it is done on a country-by-country basis? The reason I say that is that some EU nations are quite strong already on their conservation areas and protected areas and some are quite weak, and I would include Ireland in the latter. If we use this average, is there a tendency to let some countries off lightly?

The upcoming agri-environment scheme will be launched shortly. The NPWS has a role in that, particularly from the points of view of science and data collection. As for the co-operation areas, that is, the areas, particularly in the west of Ireland, where farmers will be able to avail of the highest payments for results-based or bespoke schemes, I feel there is potentially a lack of data in some of those areas. For example, the Beara Peninsula and large parts of Kerry in the south west are included, but the Mizen Peninsula, which has very similar features and species to those of the Beara Peninsula, is for some reason excluded. It is said that that is based on scientific data and NPWS data, but is it worth commenting that there is probably a lack of data in a lot of these areas and that, therefore, they should be looked at again? I feel there will be very much a missed opportunity if we leave large portions of those areas out. Dr. Lynn might comment on that.

I attended the biodiversity conference during the week. The following is more of a general point. I would like a comment on it from Dr. Lynn. One of the recurring comments was that we tend in most western countries to measure wealth specifically as economic and financial wealth and that the wealth of our national heritage and biodiversity does not really feature. Does Dr. Lynn think we should look at that going forward and that when we measure the wealth of a country or how well a country is doing, we should include that?

I have one more question. I am sorry for overwhelming Dr. Lynn with these. My last question is about biodiversity officers. Dr. Lynn touched on it in previous comments. At the moment we have heritage officers but, unfortunately, when they are in local authorities, the scope of their work is just so broad that biodiversity can sometimes very much take a back seat. For example, the biodiversity officer in Cork County Council does a fantastic job, but his role is very much focused on heritage, history and the unveiling of plaques for commemorations. There seems to be very little focus on biodiversity. I would like an update on the role of biodiversity officers and how quickly we might see them rolled out into local authorities. Local authorities are significant landowners and, therefore, have a significant role to play in protecting biodiversity and increasing habitat. Therefore, biodiversity teams - not just an officer - and plans are absolutely essential.

There was plenty there for you, Dr. Lynn.

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

I will tackle the question of whether all EU countries should have 30% targets. We really need to look at the landscape of a lot of the EU countries. Some of them are quite extensively forested with natural forests, and a lot of those are state-owned natural forests, so a lot of those countries may have quite a higher proportion of their areas protected. Ireland's landscape is quite complex in respect of the average landholding size, particularly in the west, where probably most of our more pristine biodiversity areas are, so it is slightly more complicated. If you look at how long it took us to get through the process of the 14% we have protected, I think we have learned a lot of lessons from that process. We really need to sit down and think about where we should target to increase some of that terrestrial area. We certainly should make sure we have captured any of our remaining old oak forests in that as well as, perhaps, some more of our wetlands and fens. Both those would be more carbon-rich systems.

There is probably a reason for the different percentages in different countries. Also, Ireland is 90% marine, which is very important to remember. I think and hope that that is where our contribution will be, proportionately higher than a lot of the other EU countries are in the marine sphere. We need to look at our State-owned and public lands. We are looking at our landbanks for housing; we should look at our landbanks for biodiversity purposes as well. Then we should look very closely at any of the areas where we have been putting EU money in for restoration purposes as well.

As for the lack of data and data collection, we have over the years been building up our monitoring data sets. It is quite costly to go out and get ecologists in the field, particularly in remote and upland areas and to get really good habitat maps of a lot of our upland or coastal complexes. However, we have been building them over time, and there is the new land cover map that has been produced by Ordnance Survey Ireland in conjunction with the EPA. That will be released soon and will give us a much better resolution of the type of land cover across Ireland. We dealt with a much cruder map in previous times, so we should have a lot more information.

We also now need to look towards more interpretation of satellite imagery. I remember trying that back in around 2006, it must have been. We commissioned some satellite imagery from, I think, somewhere in Mayo. I remember at the time recognising that there would be cloud cover - it is Ireland and some imaging will be lost to cloud cover - but I did not realise there was cloud shadow as well. We lost a lot to the shadow of the cloud.

All these technologies are improving over time and different types of remote sensing can also be used to get over this. We are continually developing in that area. Some very good EPA-funded projects have been developing habitat mapping using remote imagery. We hope our data sets will build over time. In agriculture, people are looking to get biodiversity inventories of many farms.

We need to build a lot of this information together. The biodiversity data centre has obviously been collecting a large amount of species information for us over time and that is building. We are undertaking many measures so we need to look at where these conservation measures are being undertaken, whether they are effective and what change has occurred. We have applied for funding to European mechanisms called strategic integrated projects and strategic nature projects under the EU LIFE instrument. This funding would enable us to collate much of this information and build the architecture to give us all better access and better up-to-date data and information. That is building and we have much to do in that area.

On wealth, as I said, I always think we should be measuring progress by our common good. Various indices are worked on, for example, the happiness index. There should be a different one rather than having only straightforward GDP because it is not a good measure of how the general population are feeling. We need to address that.

On the biodiversity officers, we recognised the need for biodiversity officers to be in all local authorities and that programme is being rolled out over the next couple of years. The Heritage Council is spearheading that development. I hope that once we get a large number of them in place and they are working effectively with the heritage officers, it will have a snowball effect and we can get more funding, possibly through the local area groups under LEADER and under Agenda 21, which perhaps has been renamed. We also have funding for that level, from which teams can be built up. That is what we did in the NPWS. There could be one scientist who was the expert in an area and that person would have to go out and survey that area throughout the whole country. In such cases, the work would be commissioned and the person would use the expertise of consultants but would still go out and do the work. I hope that when teams build up, they will be in a position to engage in a lot of action on the ground and bring on board more expertise.

I will ask one more question since no one else is indicating.

Dr. Lynn mentioned that birds were not her area of expertise. On the general approach, and again this relates to agri-environment schemes, some of the bespoke schemes for many wading species were successful, certainly at the beginning. It is to be hoped the curlew project will have some success. As part of the new agri-environment schemes, we will see more wading species included in the bespoke schemes. We have seen the success of the hen harrier project and the corncrake project is having success. Certain species of birds that sometimes go under the radar are disappearing in front of our eyes. If Dr. Lynn is unable to answer this, perhaps she could feed it back to the Department. I am thinking of farmland passerines, which include the linnet and buntings such as the yellowhammer. The yellowhammer in particular is a bird that is pretty much disappearing in front of our eyes. Unless we intervene, it will meet the same fate as the corn bunting, which is extinct in Ireland. Is there a plan in the NPWS or the Department to go further than the current schemes for wading species and raptors, which are easier to create, and consider schemes for smaller passerines which are declining at an alarming rate?

Dr. Deirdre Lynn

I will have to come back to the Deputy on that. I believe they may be built into some of the agricultural schemes under the CAP strategic plan. I can revert to the Deputy with further information on that.

I thank Dr. Lynn and Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan. We seldom have sessions where we have just one guest before us. I admire Dr. Lynn for withstanding two hours of varied and intense questioning. We certainly appreciate her time and expertise. This has been a thorough and useful session. We had some sessions last year and decided to hold off on publishing our report until we had an extra session, which is what today was about. In the next few weeks, the committee hopes to finalise its report on biodiversity. It should be interesting. Members are very engaged in the issue and want to see the biodiversity crisis addressed with the same vigour with which the climate crisis is being addressed. I thank Dr. Lynn again.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.07 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 21 June 2022.
Barr
Roinn